Trail rage incident

[Lightingguy59]

. The article said that the confrontation was about who was supposed to yield.

The article said nothing about that.

You (and many others) are making assumptions on few actual facts.

I'm making an assumption that as the women followed the cyclist to take a photo, it's possible that she's the one being confrontational and made potentially false statements to the police about what happened. The cyclist might well be 85 for all I know and cant climb a hill for crap, which is why a 65 year old women was maybe able to walk him down ?. Maybe the cyclist reached out to block his photo being taken and the women slipped while thinking she was about to be struck. Oh My God, another assumption.

I actually have no clue as to what happened and the article tells us very little so I'll stop making assumptions.

[Frye]

The article said nothing about that.

You (and many others) are making assumptions on few actual facts.

I'm making an assumption that as the women followed the cyclist to take a photo, it's possible that she's the one being confrontational and made potentially false statements to the police about what happened. The cyclist might well be 85 for all I know and cant climb a hill for crap, which is why a 65 year old women was maybe able to walk him down ?. Maybe the cyclist reached out to block his photo being taken and the women slipped while thinking she was about to be struck. Oh My God, another assumption.

I actually have no clue as to what happened and the article tells us very little so I'll stop making assumptions.

The article didn't say that, you're right. The article stated that the reports they were getting was that the cyclist actually hit her. We've also heard from friends of hers reporting her injuries in detail, and from locals in the area who have also had nasty run-ins with the cyclist on this trail.

Deduction doesn't always provide the proof, but it does often provide the most likely cause. We're not basing our assumptions off of nothing.

[rickb]

One thing you can assume is that just because a person is out on the trail does not necessarily mean they are grounded with the same basic set of values as you are.

There are some bad people out there.

I give the old bird credit for standing up for herself, but hope the women in my own family exercise great caution in similar circumstances. They probably wouldn't, but Tuckahoe has a point.

[Pedaling Fool]

What's funny is that all the official trail etiquette signs I've seen has cyclist give way to hikers, but the practice is the complete opposite, see the triangle for yielding http://www.nps.gov/biso/planyourvisi...letiquette.htm


Shouldn't they just change that, so that the hiker is in the cyclist's position on the triangle? I know it's counter-intuitive, because on all roadways the cyclist must yield to pedestrians, but it's probably better than having official guidance that is completely off the mark of what happens in the real world.



BTW, the cyclist was totally at fault here, and I'm not talking about basic etiquette, that went out the window when he allegedly assaulted her, even if he just yelled at her, he's a douche.

That sign means that bikes yield to hikers and horses, and that hikers yield to horses. The arrow points to who you yield to.

Attachment 30151

From the International Mountain Biking Association
https://www.imba.com/resources/risk-.../shared-trails

Emphasis added:

I know what it says/means, re-read my post.

What I was saying is that it seems from my perspective that it's almost universal that hikers step out of the way of cyclists (regardless of going up/down a hill or on a straight-a-way), so over time it will (if not already) become an expected behavior of a hiker to yield to a cyclist; a stark difference to official rules.

But, I'm just going off what I hear from others that hike on multi-use trails; personally, I stay away from them. Maybe it's not a big deal, because they are not used much, but from my experience on paved MUPs, such as in D.C. (I stay away from those as well) the cyclists expect everyone to get out of the way, but they are suppose to yield.

[WingedMonkey]

No, and they often don't follow road rules either, failing to stop for red lights and stop signs, passing stopped school buses, etc. But they complain loudly if you don't respect their right to the road.

Thanks for the chuckle.

A few years ago, while in the bike lane on a 6 lane road less than a mile from home, a school bus passed me (right tires on the solid white curb line and still moving) and was about 6 feet in front of me when it put out the stop-arm and stopping lights just before stopping.

While applying my brakes and trying to not lock up the front wheel or lay down the bike we both came to a stop at the same time.

I was face to face with her at the bus door, lucky for me she was moving when she opened the stop-arm or I'd have been smacked square in the face with it.

The look of horror on her face and the students yelling, was enough for me to do little more than remind her she was an idiot.

Usually I take my own camera out of the handle bar bag and snap tag pics of folks who almost run me over.

[Another Kevin]

The right of way belongs to the greater kinetic energy. That's the laws of physics, which tend to trump human-made rules.

[Feral Bill]

The right of way belongs to the greater kinetic energy. That's the laws of physics, which tend to trump human-made rules.

In the boating world we call that "the tonnage rule".

[Second Hand]

I'm really surprised at how many people are justifying hitting a 65 year old women.

In all honesty, whether it was a 65 year old women or a 28 year old male adults aren't supposed to hit each other... If she was being aggressive in her photo taking, I'm willing to bet a person on a bike could outrun a 65 year old person on foot.

Look, i get frustrated with people too and lets face it, we've all wanted to punch out a biker, but you can't do it!

[iAmKrzys]

Without getting into the details of this incident I think the guy should consider himself lucky that he didn't encounter another Captain Ellen Jack ( http://actionmatrix.com/History/html...aptainJack.htm ) Here is my favorite quote about her: “Of the numerous times she was arrested, Ellen was always justified in shooting the man or men who tried to steal, cheat or kill her.”

[Sarcasm the elf]

The right of way belongs to the greater kinetic energy. That's the laws of physics, which tend to trump human-made rules.

I'm quite pro-bicycle, but the fact that pedestrians have the right of way in our society is a settled issue. Cyclists are the ones generating that kinetic energy and it is their job to ensure that it does not put anyone else in danger, hence it is their duty to yield. Besides, half the time they ride up to you so quietly that you don't even notice them until they alert you.

The law of tonnage that Feral Bill mentions exists because the larger a ship is, the more difficult it is for it to be able to steer and stop. Because of this the smaller more nimble ships have the duty yield. Unlike ships, bikes have certain conveniences such as have brakes and responsive steering, which is why the tonnage rule is neither necessary or appropriate.

Now all that said, I generally yield to everyone I meet on the trail, it just seems like the polite thing to do.

[Jake2c]

I don't know if there are rules on the trail but on streets, pedestrians have the right of way over bikes and cars. Bikes come next and then cars. Common sense though dictates that the law of gross tonnage applies. I never heard of an uphill/downhill right of way. But there is one on rivers. Going down river you have the right of way because it is easier for someone going up to stop and maneuver. If the same logic was applied to a trail it would be the person going down hill having to yield.

[Connie]

I mentioned "gonzo" mountain bike bicyclists on another thread, here. It is a bicyclist's term: gonzo, meaning blasting downhill at top speed.

Riding a bicycle around a "blind turn" at any speed is a risk.

It's all about the thrill of the risk.

That is why there are trails marked for bicyclists and they are separate trails from hiking trails: why doesn't everyone know that? Bicyclists are not out for a liesurely ride along a lake shore and certainly not on hill or mountain descents.

Bicyclists have shared paved pathways with pedestrians in parks with disastrous results, elsewhere, as well.

Park pathways are not race courses.

I have one of those silly handlebar ding-a-ling bells on every bicycle I have owned, just to let walkers I am overtaking with the bicycle I am there. They look over their shoulder. Often they step aside, step off the path or simply make room.

No big deal, courtesy.

[Grinch]

It's not always easy (or safe) for a biker to yield, but it's usually pretty easy for a hiker to step aside for a second. Common sense and simple courtesy on both sides.

Look mountain bikers are constantly destroying trails. I run into them all the time hiking. Almost always on trails where biking is not allowed. So if whoever was riding a hike trail with a mountain bike common courtesy goes out the window when they disrespect the law. I don't like mb and they should be collectively told to leave the trail.

[Gray Bear]

I'm really surprised at how many people are justifying hitting a 65 year old women.

In all honesty, whether it was a 65 year old women or a 28 year old male adults aren't supposed to hit each other... If she was being aggressive in her photo taking, I'm willing to bet a person on a bike could outrun a 65 year old person on foot.

Look, i get frustrated with people too and lets face it, we've all wanted to punch out a biker, but you can't do it!

I gotta say this thread really bummed me out. I really wanted to believe that all my fellow hikers were more compassionate than your average person and that we felt a kinship to each other. I wanted to think we were all in the woods to escape that darker side of humanity that seems to more and more prevalent these days. I wanted to believe at the very least we could agree that beating a 65 year old woman because she caused a 30 year old man to loose if forward momentum on a bike ride was wrong. But instead some of you chose to in someway or another to try and justify it and turn it into a discussion about who has the right of way. Its a sad day for the hiking community when we have folks with that mindset among us.

[Sarcasm the elf]

I gotta say this thread really bummed me out. I really wanted to believe that all my fellow hikers were more compassionate than your average person and that we felt a kinship to each other. I wanted to think we were all in the woods to escape that darker side of humanity that seems to more and more prevalent these days. I wanted to believe at the very least we could agree that beating a 65 year old woman because she caused a 30 year old man to loose if forward momentum on a bike ride was wrong. But instead some of you chose to in someway or another to try and justify it and turn it into a discussion about who has the right of way. Its a sad day for the hiking community when we have folks with that mindset among us.

I didn't read anywhere in this thread where anyone defended an attack in a 65 year old woman. Some of us did point out that there are two sides to every story and that the original article was both one sided and so seriously lacking important details about the incident that it didn't warrant a rush to judgement.

There are police investigating the incident and until they have sorted out what happened my only opinion is that I don't trust internet articles.

[mrcoffeect]

I rather be the guy who hastely jumped to defend and side with a 65 year old lady, than be the guy who wants to wait and see if maybe she some how is in the wrong.

[Sarcasm the elf]

I rather be the guy who hastely jumped to defend and side with a 65 year old lady, than be the guy who wants to wait and see if maybe she some how is in the wrong.

If we were directly involved with of affected by the incident then sure, we would have to act based on what was available. However we are just hikers on the internet discussing an article that we read about on the internet. We have the luxury of being able to wait for the the full story and that is the wise thing to do.

My opinion about this is not specific to this story, it is my MO when dealing with reports on the internet and I'm used to it making me unpopular.

[squeezebox]

Not too far from me in St. Louis is Forest Park. It's 1 mile by 2 miles with a 10 K paved bike path and a separate gravel foot path next to it. It's not uncommon for 6 suburban women out for lunch and a walk to take up the entire width of the trail, probably 8 ft. There's a white line down the center of the path. stay on your side. I have had to push them out of the way because they ignored my yelling "passing" There's also a pack of 30 or more runners who take up the whole trail plus 2 ft. on each side every morning, multiply the situation by at least 5-10. I have skinny 1" tires that don't do dirt. Again stay on your side of the white line. I have never seen a road cyclist on the wrong side of the white line, except to pass someone. There's no white line down the center of a path, but pretend there is. My guess is the hiker and the cyclist both had attitude problems. If you are a hiker listen to the noise a mountain bike makes and step aside, take the idiot ear buds out of your ears. You're out there to enjoy nature not to listen to a concert. If you are a mountain biker shout out your approach, if no response take appropriate action, stop if neccessary. You do not own the trail you share it. Didn't your grandma tell you to respect other people? What happened to your brain?? The same thing for out of control dogs, hanging stuff in shelters, walkman speakers, and a bunch of other stuff.
Hike your own hike, Do not interfere with mine, or I have a right to interfere with yours.

[perdidochas]

The article said nothing about that.

You (and many others) are making assumptions on few actual facts.

I'm making an assumption that as the women followed the cyclist to take a photo, it's possible that she's the one being confrontational and made potentially false statements to the police about what happened. The cyclist might well be 85 for all I know and cant climb a hill for crap, which is why a 65 year old women was maybe able to walk him down ?. Maybe the cyclist reached out to block his photo being taken and the women slipped while thinking she was about to be struck. Oh My God, another assumption.

I actually have no clue as to what happened and the article tells us very little so I'll stop making assumptions.

Yes, it did say that:

Linda Dahl, director of Marin County Parks, said she could provide only limited details of what happened because the situation remains under investigation. But she said the conflict was prompted by a disagreement over “yielding the trail.”

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/articl...ge-6112386.php

[perdidochas]

I know what it says/means, re-read my post.

What I was saying is that it seems from my perspective that it's almost universal that hikers step out of the way of cyclists (regardless of going up/down a hill or on a straight-a-way), so over time it will (if not already) become an expected behavior of a hiker to yield to a cyclist; a stark difference to official rules.

But, I'm just going off what I hear from others that hike on multi-use trails; personally, I stay away from them. Maybe it's not a big deal, because they are not used much, but from my experience on paved MUPs, such as in D.C. (I stay away from those as well) the cyclists expect everyone to get out of the way, but they are suppose to yield.

Oops, I reread your post, sorry.

That said, I agree, as a hiker, if I see a mountain biker coming uphill, I'm getting out of his way. Heck, I always step out of the way if at all possible, unless the other person has already stepped out of the way. I'm not in a rush, so I'll use any excuse for a break.