Dana Lake ‘23
Staff Editor
Hey, I’m Hiking Here
Anyone who has spent time on a trail will be familiar with the many unique and wondrous forms of disappointment in humanity found only in the woods. There’s littering and graffiti, classic disappointments. There are slow walkers meandering three-across, an entry-level disappointment that heavily overlaps with the disappointment of people who play loud music through tinny speakers in their backpack. There are more advanced disappointments, like time-lapse photographers that set themselves up at the best viewing spot and camp out all day or people who let their dogs run off-leash on popular routes. These are issues even my esteemed opponent would agree with. It baffles the mind why, then, he puts himself so firmly in the most disappointing group of all: people who do not respect the right of way.
His betrayal of trail etiquette should be less surprising, considering my co-writer is a Virginia native and drives like it, but respecting the right of way is an essential tenet of an outdoor person's life. There are three rules: (1) Folks going downhill yield to folks going uphill; (2) hikers yield to horses; and (3) bikers yield to hikers. These are facts straight from the National Park Service, the nation’s single most trusted source of news and information for four years running. While that should be answer enough, I am never happy to leave things at “those are the rules because that’s what the rules say,” so let’s break it down.
First, folks going downhill yield to folks going uphill because going uphill is harder. On an out-and-back trail, uphill usually means you’re on the return and therefore, more tired than someone heading in. This is courtesy codified—not only is it inhumane to break someone out of a good uphill rhythm, but interrupting someone’s momentum can mean the difference between them getting out in good time and having to add in a two-hour water break.
Second, hikers yield to horses because horses can do real harm to their rider and bystanders. Bikers yield to horses for the same reason. No one wants to be responsible for spooking a horse and getting its rider thrown off the side of a mountain. Horses are also harder to maneuver, making it more practical for hikers and bikers to give the right of way.
We take these lessons and apply them to the final rule: Bikers yield to hikers. As profoundly evil as interrupting a person’s hiking rhythm is, there’s also the practical consideration of response time. Hikers on foot, especially moving uphill, have a narrower range of vision than bikers, which makes quick reactions difficult.
Those are the fact-based reasons why my co-writer and everyone who agrees with him is absolutely wrong and terrible. The emotion-based reasons are just as valid. Bikers have their own bike-exclusive trails they can use (check out the bike trail at the Preddy Creek Loop) that are specially designed for trail riding. When bikers insist on using hiking trails, it is essential they yield to others. In a world that is continuously accelerating, people escape to the woods to slow down. Bike riders are already predisposed to careening through trails with a reckless disregard for human life. If we give them the right of way, hikers everywhere will need to be on constant alert to avoid being mowed down. That just isn’t the kind of trail I want to hike on.
Jonathan Peterson ‘23
Staff Editor
Hikers Beware
I want to preface this: I am not an unreasonable man. I love the middle ground. In fact, it’s my favorite place to be. However, on a matter as simple, clear-cut, and one-sided as this, there is no middle ground. There is right and there is wrong. And I am right.
The only question worth engaging with in answering this issue is this: For whom is it easiest to move off the trail? The person least likely to be inconvenienced by abandoning the trail for a moment should be the one expected to do so. Clearly, it is not the mountain biker, but the hiker, who should carry this burden. Both parties will have approximately the same amount of time to react to the traffic, both parties are vying for the same space, and both parties have an equal right to the trail unless specifically designated for one activity or the other. In which case, there is no argument to be made either way. The hiker is the less inconvenienced of the two, and I shall show this by presenting both sides of the equation, beginning with the mountain biker.
Trees are whipping by your face. The wind is in your hair—passing through your helmet, of course, we love safety. You’ve entered the ultimate flow state as you plunge down the descent. Suddenly, a hiker appears before you. They don’t move as your brakes screech and you yank the bike to the side of the narrow single-track trail—if it weren’t single-track, there would be no need to make room. You’re on virgin earth now. Leaves crunch and slide under your tires, everything is even bumpier than before, and those trees that were whipping by your face? Now they’re heading straight for you. All kinds of hazards abound, and because the hiker isn’t moving anywhere but forward, you not only need to move off of the trail, you either have to move over and continue trailblazing for a significant portion of time, or you have to come to a complete stop and wait for your interlocutor to trudge up the trail past you. One option is inherently dangerous; the other is an incredible inconvenience.
Sweat drips down your face. Your knees burn, and the air is humid. Gnats are buzzing around. You hate hiking. The whirring of wheels shocks you from your reverie as you look ahead—a majestic mountain biker descends expertly toward you. You would hate to get in the way. You step off the side of the trail. The sweat still drips down your face. Your knees still burn. The humidity is untouched. The gnats follow you ceaselessly. All is as it was. The biker zips past, a cool breeze following them, indicative of the breath of fresh air the biker represented in the monotony of your hike. You continue on in your misery, wistfully wondering if you could ever be so beautiful.
The difference is clear. In one situation, the individual moving off the trail must expose themselves to either unnecessary danger or inconvenience. In the other, one simply takes a step to the left or right, breathes for a moment, and then continues onward. There is no argument to be made against anyone’s right to safety.
---
dl9uh@virginia.edu
jtp4bw@virginia.edu