Corral Canyon 01/12/10

[xxxinsd 0]

Not that it matters but one reason I do not ride pine valley and lake morena is that the smaller single track is way to dangerous in my opinion for a place like this. busy, narrow, no way around the guy coming at you hauling a$$. ive had enough head ons and close calls that i call the desert my home now. its a fun place at night where you can see lights, if there is a guy coming at you and the trail is just as wide as your bars where you gunna go?

just my $.02

X

[dirt dame 559]

Not that it matters but one reason I do not ride pine valley and lake morena is that the smaller single track is way to dangerous in my opinion for a place like this. busy, narrow, no way around the guy coming at you hauling a$$.

Back in the 80s, most of the trails at Corral Canyon were truly single track. Over the years, the trails have gotten wider and wider, more groomed and opened up for quad use. I never had a head on out there until 2002 on a trail that had been widened for quads. It's no simple thing to go fast on a real single track, and really, they are designed to be all about the technical ride rather than the speed ride and that keeps a lot of the racer wannabees off them.

[xxxinsd 0]

I ve never had a head on with a quad out there. always been a fellow bike rider or dual sporter. i dont blame them they were just riding. and as long as the entry and exit is tapered and narrow should be no big deal. like i said just my .02 from a guy that dont ride there anymore but support the cause.

[mctrails 38]

Good stuff I'm hearing. You all have valid points and they are things we need to talk about and consider. I've had 4 or 5 headons at Corral culminated by one on Bear Valley road near the intersection of Long Valley Loop. That one broke my bike in half but I was fine. This is what it looked like:

So I understand the importance of sight lines and we will maintain them as much as possible. Its not really a problem right now except in the few areas we still need to work on. In the thick brush areas they are mostly handlebar height right now so even with narrow trails cut through them there will be good visiblity.

Also, we need to educate the riders that it is a trail RIDING opportunity not a trail racing opprotunity. Sure you can haul butt where it is safe but there will be areas that you need to slow down for safety's sake.

There will be plenty of opportunities to work on this and other trails coming up. Stay tuned to the Adapt a Trail... forum for details.

[dirt dame 559]

I ve never had a head on with a quad out there. .

Just to be clear; I didn't say that I was hit by a quad. I said that I was hit on a trail that was widened for quads. I was also hit head on on one of the main roads out there by somebody going really fast on the wrong side of the road around a blind turn. If I had been in my Jeep or another large four wheeler, things would have gone extremely bad for the other person.

Didn't quite break the front end of my bike off, though. Bent a fork and the front wheel....

[racerbill 0]

I rode the first 2 miles of the new trail this morn. and it's passable. We worked a little on the uphill (it's 1 mile in) and it looks like some strong guys could move 2 rocks near the top and the line up will be easier but that area is gonna need some help. There are some water crossings that will need stabilized. Because there's gonna be carnage we need to name this hill.

Tulls Massacre ?

[paulmbowers 236]

Tull's Torture?

Terrible Tull's?

[paulmbowers 236]

[robertaccio 406]

man those doggone katos just aint built like they used to be....................................

[robertaccio 406]

We worked a little on the uphill (it's 1 mile in) and it looks like some strong guys could move 2 rocks near the top and the line up will be easier but that area is gonna need some help. There are some water crossings that will need stabilized. Because there's gonna be carnage we need to name

y not Let the rides move the rocks??? carnage can be good for exclusivity.......

[hoss314 0]

is it possible to mark the trails with an enter and exit? one way trails would sure reduce the risk of head on's

[dirt dame 559]

is it possible to mark the trails with an enter and exit? one way trails would sure reduce the risk of head on's

One way signs have been discussed for the Coral Canyon area in general before. My argument is that if somebody decides that they don't want to complete the trail for any reason and they turn around to head out the way they came, they'd be hit by somebody who wasn't expecting to run into anybody, and probably hit harder than if somebody were looking out for two way traffic. Speeds are not going to be very high on this sort of terrain anyway.

[OldschoolMaico 0]

It may be too late to bring this up, but if there's dense sage brush anywhere on the new trail, recommend cutting the trail to twist and turn a lot, keeping the speed down even for knuckleheads that want to ride in a hurry.

RE; head-ons-

This is a constant AVOIDABLE hazard riding CC. The time I was at CC before the trail building, a guy I met in the parking lot had his foot broken from a head-on leaving the CC area. He'll be in a cast for weeks. There's a close encounter at least once every time I ride CC. I've been lucky only to have bumped footpegs, and another time had to ride over an edge and fall into the brush to avoid the crash. Is is going to take a fatality, maybe someone's child, to finally correct a chronic problem??

One-way trail signs seems to me to be the best solution for a proven-to-be-dangerous riding area. One of the problems remaining is that all of the trails can't be one-way, but it will be a HUGE step towards a much safer riding area.

[KTMrad 508]

It may be too late to bring this up, but if there's dense sage brush anywhere on the new trail, recommend cutting the trail to twist and turn a lot, keeping the speed down even for knuckleheads that want to ride in a hurry.

RE; head-ons-

This is a constant AVOIDABLE hazard riding CC. The time I was at CC before the trail building, a guy I met in the parking lot had his foot broken from a head-on leaving the CC area. He'll be in a cast for weeks. There's a close encounter at least once every time I ride CC. I've been lucky only to have bumped footpegs, and another time had to ride over an edge and fall into the brush to avoid the crash. Is is going to take a fatality, maybe someone's child, to finally correct a chronic problem??

One-way trail signs seems to me to be the best solution for a proven-to-be-dangerous riding area. One of the problems remaining is that all of the trails can't be one-way, but it will be a HUGE step towards a much safer riding area.

Maico, good input. The trail already does have tight turns and will not be a high speed trail.

Also, one-way trails have been discussed in the past at Forestry Service meetings. The problem is there is no good way to enforce it, and if people think it's one way, but someone decides to ride the wrong direction, then it just causes more problems. So, that's why they don't label them one-way and probably never will.

[ktm-licious 0]

It may be too late to bring this up, but if there's dense sage brush anywhere on the new trail, recommend cutting the trail to twist and turn a lot, keeping the speed down even for knuckleheads that want to ride in a hurry.

RE; head-ons-

This is a constant AVOIDABLE hazard riding CC. The time I was at CC before the trail building, a guy I met in the parking lot had his foot broken from a head-on leaving the CC area. He'll be in a cast for weeks. There's a close encounter at least once every time I ride CC. I've been lucky only to have bumped footpegs, and another time had to ride over an edge and fall into the brush to avoid the crash. Is is going to take a fatality, maybe someone's child, to finally correct a chronic problem??

One-way trail signs seems to me to be the best solution for a proven-to-be-dangerous riding area. One of the problems remaining is that all of the trails can't be one-way, but it will be a HUGE step towards a much safer riding area.

Maico, good input. The trail already does have tight turns and will not be a high speed trail.

Also, one-way trails have been discussed in the past at Forestry Service meetings. The problem is there is no good way to enforce it, and if people think it's one way, but someone decides to ride the wrong direction, then it just causes more problems. So, that's why they don't label them one-way and probably never will.

Ktm-rad,

This is a very important subject for all of us that have been riding CC. About a year ago I was involved with a head-on at Mccain I broke all my fingers on my left hand. I was not going to fast but the other rider was "Racing", I was pissed of that I was riding in a respectful manner, but the other rider was not. I could not do anything about it, got on my bike batter & bruised and rode off.

By the way my ktm held up pretty good the other guys bike broke his handlebar in half. I feel if the trails where marked one way at least we can hold the other irresponsible riders somwhat liabale for their actions. I think arrows would be a step in the "right direction."Something is better than nothing.

[KTMrad 508]

This is a very important subject for all of us that have been riding CC. About a year ago I was involved with a head-on at Mccain I broke all my fingers on my left hand. I was not going to fast but the other rider was "Racing", I was pissed of that I was riding in a respectful manner, but the other rider was not. I could not do anything about it, got on my bike batter & bruised and rode off.

By the way my ktm held up pretty good the other guys bike broke his handlebar in half. I feel if the trails where marked one way at least we can hold the other irresponsible riders somwhat liabale for their actions. I think arrows would be a step in the "right direction."Something is better than nothing.

Still doesn't change the fact that it will probably never happen. I've been to the Forestry meetings where it's been discussed.

How you going to enforce one-way trails ? If it can't be enforced, it won't happen. Then there was the discussion about if you make a trail one-way, then it opens up the people who labelled it one way to litigation and liability, unfortunately we live in a litigious society.

Another point......if there's an idiot riding on the wrong side of a public dirt road and takes someone out, should they make the dirt road one way ? It's the same principle.

If we ride in an area where other people ride, we accept all the risks associated with it.

In a perfect world, a one way trail would be nice. It's not a perfect world.

I'm not saying input about this is not important, and the topic is not important, I'm just stating what I've experienced about the topic in the past and shedding different light on it.

[robertaccio 406]

would love one way trails, but what Randy said. Also bear in mind that one's idea of fast is another's slow and relaxed. And this goes for trail toughness as well. Just be careful out there and enjoy the ride. Private property, one way is possible, public property forget it. my 2cents

[OldschoolMaico 0]

I think you're missing the point. It's not so much about ENFORCEMENT. More to the point, it's about COMPLIANCE.

Let's apply some logic; currently, there is NO guidance regarding trail direction. More or less, 50% are going one way, 50% the other. This is the maximum possible odds of a collision.

If we apply directional guidance (one-way signs), and assume 9 out of 10 riders comply with directional guidance, and 1 out of 10 don't, then out of 100 riders we now have 90 riders all going in the same direction instead of only 50. Don't you think that would improve an existing PROVEN DANGEROUS situation?? If not, why not?

Anyone who drives knows what will happen when you drive down a one-way street the wrong way. Of course, there will be the occasional knucklehead going the wrong way, but IMHO there will be far, far fewer collisions if we mark trails one-way.

And that increased safety would make one-way trails worth the time and effort required.

[PastaPilot 17]

I don't think you're getting it. We all understad your logic and we all make the same argument for one way trails but it not an argument of logic. It's a matter of litigation for the forest service. If the ONE WAY trail designation can't be enforced someone will go the wrong way and a collision will result. The Rider that was going the correct way will sue the agencies responsible for the area for not enforcing the one way designation. In the end it's not going to happen because there's not enough rangers to patrol the one ways or money in the coffer to get more rangers so you'll just need to accept it and be cautious when riding on the public trails.

[Metal Twister 0]

Seems a large sign stating that it is a two way trail and beware of on coming traffic with a suggested max safe speed be observed. Might at least put the question, or fear that on coming traffic might be around the next bush. Keeping the trail wide enough for different skill levels as well as enough room to get by on coming bikes, but not wide enough for quads and side by sides. This would be a big advantage to surviving a head on!

[bikeslut 1]

I'm sure its a moot point, but I agree with maico.

Like people can hold rangers accountable for monitoring one way traffic...

Make it one way, and let riders self police it...more reasonable than "speed limits" to me... As others have pointed out...MY too fast is another persons slow....

[OldschoolMaico 0]

OK, I got it.

Exposure to litigation is what's driving the park's decisions.

Metal Twister's got a good idea there. Maybe include on the signs that pic of the broke-in-half KTM, and some pics of bashed-up riders at the side of the trail.

Anything to get riders thinking and riding defensively.

[OldschoolMaico 0]

I realize I'm catching the game late in the 4th quarter so forgive my ignorance, but I'd like to know please if the matter of litigation for the forest service, the threat of sueing the agencies responsible for the area for not enforcing the one way designation, is this matter that has been determined by a lawyer for the forest service, or for SDAR, or is it only an assumption by a ranger, or SDAR member, or someone else that doesn't know what the legal facts are?

Being told "you'll just need to accept it" doesn't seem to me to be a course of action that will result in any improvement in the status quo. IMHO the rangers are no more required to enforce the one-way designation any more than they are required to enforce speed limits on the trails. I think working together to find solutions before one of us is paralyzed or killed is well worth the effort.

[KTMrad 508]

Being told "you'll just need to accept it" doesn't seem to me to be a course of action that will result in any improvement in the status quo. IMHO the rangers are no more required to enforce the one-way designation any more than they are required to enforce speed limits on the trails. I think working together to find solutions before one of us is paralyzed or killed is well worth the effort.

Perhaps a couple of you who are concerned about head-ons and one-way trails, want to attend the Cleveland National Forest Meeting that would be in March, they hold quarterly meetings. They are NOT open to the public, but OHV groups and clubs can have a couple people attend from each group. You can ask them questions specifically, and hold them accountable for their decisions.

I have been to some of these, definitely have not been to enough of the meetings. I plan on going to more of them, and I'll post when I know the time/date of the next meeting.

[KTMrad 508]

I'm sure its a moot point, but I agree with maico.

Like people can hold rangers accountable for monitoring one way traffic...

Slut, it's not about holding rangers accountable. Once the litigation process starts and there's a lawsuit, everyone gets dragged in, no matter what their involvement. Even if they can't be held accountable, they'll still be named in the lawsuit, and that's not what they want.

Trust me, I'm involved in construction defect litigation so know a bit about the process.