The Oaks Single track

Since 2001, over 90,000 cyclist's have joined Cycling Forums to discuss topics from general cycling to equipment, training, racing and travel or vacation destinations (especially in europe during the tour de france). We also feature an great deals in our online store, 100's of articles, classifieds and product reviews.

I had a head on with another mountain bike today on the Oaks singletrack.

I was heading toward Glenbrook and a group of riders were coming up from
Glenbrook.
There was no time react and the lead rider and I hit front wheel to front
wheel.

I got a black eye and some grazing. He had to limp home with a very stuffed
front wheel.

There seems to be more and more traffic on the single track heading west
these days. Is it possible that the days of going hard down it are over?

Ken

Hope you offered to pay for his wheel

Parbs

Why pray tell?????

"kanangara" <kanangara.32diuz@no-mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote in
message news:kanangara.32diuz@no-mx.forums.cyclingforums.com...
>
> Hope you offered to pay for his wheel
>
> Parbs
>
>
> --
> kanangara
>

"Ken & Stace" <stuffyermailskimmers@bugpud.com> wrote in message
news:Zxpdj.28881$CN4.24499@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>I had a head on with another mountain bike today on the Oaks singletrack.
>
> I was heading toward Glenbrook and a group of riders were coming up from
> Glenbrook.
> There was no time react and the lead rider and I hit front wheel to front
> wheel.
>
> I got a black eye and some grazing. He had to limp home with a very
> stuffed front wheel.
>
> There seems to be more and more traffic on the single track heading west
> these days. Is it possible that the days of going hard down it are over?
>
> Ken
>
Maybe because it's the holiday period and for no other reason that people
are out and about enjoying this good weather before it clags in again...
They say it's going to be a wet summer on average right through till mid
march so you gotta make the best of it...sorry to hear about the accident
though....hope you heal quickly.

DJ

On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 22:23:14 +0000, Ken & Stace wrote:

> Parbs wrote:

>> Hope you offered to pay for his wheel

> Why pray tell?

I'm sure you're not going to like this, but what Rob's probably implying
is that you were riding too fast to take evasive action (as you pretty
much admitted - "There was no time react") and therefore bear most of the
responsibility for the crash.

It's very easy to think of the Oaks as one-way, but it's not and
therefore standard trail etiquette applies: don't go so fast that you
can't take evasive action in the event of something unexpected.

Of course it'd help if all the old detours hadn't been straight-lined.
They used to force people to slow down.

In that case, (according to your logic) he also didnt have time to take
evasive action and was not riding for the conditions. Therefore it was a
50/50 responsiblilty.
I will pay for his wheel if he pays my medical expenses.
Sound fair?

I also will add that we rode back to the Glenbrook gate together and were
quite amicable when we said goodbye.

But thank you for your opinion, you have answered my question. It does
appear that the days of doing a flying run down (or up for that matter) the
Oaks singletrack are in the past.

Cheers

Ken

"JohnJohn" <john@mtb-oz.com> wrote in message
news:47774d16$0$13113$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
> On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 22:23:14 +0000, Ken & Stace wrote:
>
>> Parbs wrote:
>
>>> Hope you offered to pay for his wheel
>
>> Why pray tell?
>
> I'm sure you're not going to like this, but what Rob's probably implying
> is that you were riding too fast to take evasive action (as you pretty
> much admitted - "There was no time react") and therefore bear most of the
> responsibility for the crash.
>
> It's very easy to think of the Oaks as one-way, but it's not and
> therefore standard trail etiquette applies: don't go so fast that you
> can't take evasive action in the event of something unexpected.
>
> Of course it'd help if all the old detours hadn't been straight-lined.
> They used to force people to slow down.

On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 08:16:25 +0000, Ken & Stace wrote:

> In that case, (according to your logic) he also didn't have time to take
> evasive action and was not riding for the conditions. Therefore it was a
> 50/50 responsibility.

As the faster-moving bike you bear the majority of the duty of care,
since you're putting other trail users in a situation where they can't
take evasive action however slowly they ride. I find it hard to believe
this isn't obvious.

> I also will add that we rode back to the Glenbrook gate together and
> were quite amicable when we said goodbye.

That's good. I'm sure there's no federal case here, and I've had one or
two similar bingles that resulted in nothing worse than bruises to body
and pride. But you came across as trying to disclaim responsibility for a
crash which you largely caused. Told you you wouldn't like having that
pointed out, but you did ask.

> It does
> appear that the days of doing a flying run down (or up for that matter)
> the Oaks singletrack are in the past.

It's never been completely safe to ride down the Oaks singletrack as if
it were a one-way trail because, simply, it isn't. It's been a few years
since I last rode up it, but it's not a very unusual or new thing to do.
I remember one weekend a few years ago when trackwork meant it was the
only way to get up and loads of people were doing so.

The trails are busy; we all have to be careful.

On 2007-12-30, JohnJohn (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 08:16:25 +0000, Ken & Stace wrote:
>
>> In that case, (according to your logic) he also didn't have time to take
>> evasive action and was not riding for the conditions. Therefore it was a
>> 50/50 responsibility.
>
> As the faster-moving bike you bear the majority of the duty of care,

(assuming he's the faster moving, which is a good chance)

> since you're putting other trail users in a situation where they can't
> take evasive action however slowly they ride. I find it hard to believe
> this isn't obvious.

If he needs examples, think of a car suddenly appearing on the wrong
side of the road around a blind corner, doing 95km/h. If the bike
rider is doing 5km/h on their correct side of the road, they're still
going too fast to avoid the impending head on collision with the car
doing the wrong thing. Hence it's quite evidently not the bike
rider's fault.

--
TimC
> It was... weird. Death was smaller than I imagined
I have nothing to say, I just can't resist quoting this out of context.
-- Steve VanDevenver replying to Satya on ASR

On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 08:16:25 +0000, Ken & Stace wrote:

> In that case, (according to your logic) he also didn't have time to take
> evasive action and was not riding for the conditions. Therefore it was a
> 50/50 responsibility.

As the faster-moving bike you bear the majority of the duty of care,
since you're putting other trail users in a situation where they can't
take evasive action however slowly they ride. I find it hard to believe
this isn't obvious.
[color=blue]

And it could of just as easily been a small child, an old couple out walking, a wombat or a large kangaroo.

Fly down the Oaks single track by all means but at a speed only at which you can avoid hitting other track users.

Parbs