[Closed] Inquest into Mark Kingston's death at Swinley trails held

RIP indeed but no mention of said tree. I think for most of the last 5 mountain bike rides I have done there have been tree's close to all sides of the trail. Not sure why you want them removed.

Terrible event and my thoughts still go out to the family

However, i'm pleased that there is no input from the H&S Executive.

Do you really want rules to be set out in trail centres around the country laying down strict guidelines on how close trees can be to trails??

The Crown Estate has enough issues with people trying to sue them over crashes which people have of their own accord - any official guidelines would help generate more of a blame & litigation culture which would completely sanitise and throttle our sport.

Tragic incident. But what we do carries a risk. It's partly why we do it. You shouldn't base "rules" on one tragic event.

Is the tree in middle of the trail? If not, it is rider error, not the fault of the tree. Pure and simple.

As above, the last thing that should happen is the HSE getting involved: we'd have flat, featureless trails made out of bark chippings.

I feel for Mark and his family, I really do, but it has to be accepted this was a horrible, freak accident, caused by rider error. I've ridden around Swinley many times and never given the trees a second thought, as they are off the trail, just like thousands of trails around the World.

Inquests like these could result in the death of the sport in this country if we're not careful.

RIP Mark.

Its terrible that anyone should die in the process of doing something they love, but its a good way to go.

With regards to the tree, sorry, but they were there before the trails. If I cock up on one of my local singletrack blasts and smack into a tree Im not going to demand that the FC / landowner get it cut down immediately. I'll dust myself off, hope the bike is ok and carry on with my ride.
Doing anything involves risks, mountainbiking possibly more than other leisure activities. You cant avoid all risks and you cant expect others to remove them for you.
Ride within your limits.

I'll dust myself off, hope the bike is ok and carry on with my ride.

you hope...

Agreed that it's a tragic accident, and my thoughts are with his family and friends, but it's madness to want tree placement considered.

Thanks for the post. RIP.

Thanks for the update RipMK. As MKs riding buddy this must be a tough thing to deal with. I suppose there is some comfort from the inquest that there was nothing untoward contributing to this and it was, sadly a freak accident. Hope this helps you, and MKs familly move on.

As others said. If you were to do a risk assessment of a mountainbike route using the same criteria you'd apply to a workplace it would always come out as unsafe.

The best you can do is make it as safe as reasnobly practical, which ultimately means doing all the easy/cheap things like building a trail to a grading system and removing the most dangerous bits. It would lie outside the bounds of reasnoble to remove any trees close to the trail in a forest. And on that trail in particular the trail is really wide (which contributes to its speed) and most people on this foum will have crashed at some point at similar speeds and been flung 2,3,4m off the trail, which just shows how unlucky Mark was. But that can't be a reason to remove every tree within 5m on the trail and replace with a soft smooth landing.

The HSE covers Health & Safety at work, not leisure activities, so irrelevant in this instance. The Coroner has authority to instigate further investigation or remedial work at his/her discretion.

Accidents happen. Stay safe!

The trees around that trail look pretty mature. Likely due for harvesting soon...

Yes, apparently there is due to be massive amounts of harvesting in the next year at Swinley. Can't remember the details but it will be a significant amount.

remove every tree within 5m on the trail and replace with a soft smooth landing.

and if you did that, people would just go faster and hurt themselves in a different way when it went wrong.

Road racing is a lot more dangerous than MotoGP mostly because there is no room to crash without smacking something and stopping instantly.

There is no reason why forestry commission trails should have trees or trees without impact pads right next to the trail. They cut the things down all the time anyway.

The trail centres aren't going to be less fun because there are less trees in daft places and crash pads on the ones that are. Keeping trees right next to the trail is about profits, I'm quite happy to ride trails with lots of trees but I'd also much rather just pay more for parking and hear/see less serious injuries involving them.

There is no reason why forestry commission trails should have trees or trees without impact pads right next to the trail. They cut the things down all the time anyway.

The trail centres aren't going to be less fun because there are less trees in daft places and crash pads on the ones that are.

Yes, there are various reasons. One is cost, another is a potential increase in liability. An overriding one, as evidenced by the majority on this thread, is that it is not necessary or wanted by mountain bikers.

I for one, cite riding in woods as one of the reasons I ride. The idea of having to ride in a tree-felled moonscape, ala Afan, with no variety except sun bleached grey brash and stumps, because some chump wants to remove 'unacceptable risk' fills me with horror.

If something has to be done, rather than remove the tree, perhaps speed control via trail design should be looked at, just like it is pretty much everywhere else? Of course, that's harder to do than just buzzing down some trees with a chain saw.

I'm sorry that someone I've never met died out riding. I hope he was having a good day otherwise.

Cutting down trees in a line may make the remaining trees more exposed to the wind, more likely to lose branches or fall over. That's not a good idea.

Tarmac the lot if you like, it's for your own safety, but I shan't go there. Personaly, if I happen to expire by smacking into a tree, I don't want the tree blamed.

Firstly, I am sure that Marks death is a tragedy for his family and friends - as is death for most when it happens at a relatively young age and unexpectedly.

Secondly, the quote below from Tom_W1987 is just all sorts of wrong. Mountain biking is not meant to be inherently safe. It is an activity with a level of risk. Sometimes that risk has consequences. This risk exists on trail centre trails as much as anywhere else with similar geography, flora etc... We should be looking to manage our own risk levels to a degree we are comfortable with - not expecting others to do this for us, not abdicating our own responsibility.

Tom_W1987 - Member
Road racing is a lot more dangerous than MotoGP mostly because there is no room to crash without smacking something and stopping instantly.
There is no reason why forestry commission trails should have trees or trees without impact pads right next to the trail. They cut the things down all the time anyway.
The trail centres aren't going to be less fun because there are less trees in daft places and crash pads on the ones that are. Keeping trees right next to the trail is about profits, I'm quite happy to ride trails with lots of trees but I'd also much rather just pay more for parking and hear/see less serious injuries involving them.

Im pretty sure that Tom_W1987 is taking the mick. If he's not, well.....

Very sad accident & I tip my head every time I go past the spot.

Remove the tree though? If you start doing that where does it end?

RIP Mark, may you never flat again.

Accidents happen, it you can't accept that, stay indoors, in bed, asleep, indefinitely.

Im pretty sure that Tom_W1987 is taking the mick. If he's not, well.....

I think he's sulking because he crashed on some wet roots because his tyres didn't have magic wet root grip 🙂

Health and Safety Executive, which I thought might have been involved to look at the accident scene to question trail safety. I think there is a tree that is too close to the outside of the corner exit that should be removed to reduce the risk of a similar accident happening again.

Yeah don't come to Scottish trails,you won't like them 😉

removing trees or adding padding to trees at somewhere like Swinley would not be practical?

I remember the huge cost to cover the old Esher Shore bike park in high density vinyl pads where our risk assessment felt that the trees were a major risk if falling from a trail - we were not allowed to remove trees due to the site's status as a protected woodland.

[img] [/img]

I'd hate to think of the cost to do a trail centre!

esher shore - Member
we were not allowed to remove trees due to the site's status as a protected woodland.

Weren't you kicked out so they could demolish that woodland to build on, or is it still there?

Sad it went as never got a chance to ride that stuff.

My condolences to Mark's family. This is was a tragic accident and, likewise, I also think of Mark - a fellow MTBer I'd never met, every time I ride past that spot. I'm sure he was enjoying himself while out riding there and I take comfort in that.

I think some on this thread might do well to debate things respectfully. This is a public space.

My feeling on riding through this section a number of times since - is that this was a very unlucky accident, but it may have something to do with a slight off-camber section I now note around the left-hand turn at the top. That is all.

It's just one of those weird things. Removing trees was/is not going to help much.

Reading this earlier, think it came from the Craik forest thread(?)
http://www.ornjournals.org.uk/stories/managing-off-road-cycling-is-a-risky-business-or-is-it/

The Catch22 question being:

"Do i want to ride exciting, but potentially dangerous trails, that could lead to my death, or sanitised dull trails, the riding of which would just make me wish i were (dead)..... ??

❓

It's a very sad accident but it's just that an accident. I can't see the need to sanitise the trails , tight twisty single track is what it's all about for me and many others. Maybe if you never get out in the real world you have a differnt outlook ?

[img] [/img]

That looks like a children's playground not any kind of bike trail. I'd go of my way to avoid riding it.

This was undoubtedly a tragic accident but events like this are surprisingly, thankfully, very rare considering what we do for fun.

If I had a sudden irrational fear of trees I'd stick to the skatepark. I like my mountain biking steep and sketchy. Without the risk and sense of danger and achievement that comes with it you might as well be riding an X-box.

@sharkattack - do a Google Image search on "esher shore". It was way more than the bit in the photo, but I assume that was the beginner stuff. Point that was being made though is the H&S/insurance insistence of daft padding where it is not required.

Thing is you can trip over on the street walking and hit your head, resulting in a bleed on the brain and death. What then? Soft impact surfaces on the pavements? Well, a bit like all children's playgrounds are now no fun or risk. In my day it was concrete surface to land on. Knocked some sense into some kids 😀

"Do i want to ride exciting, but potentially dangerous trails, that could lead to my death, or sanitised dull trails, the riding of which would just make me wish i were (dead)..... ??

This is like stating that riding Laguna Seca is boring because it has run offs as opposed to quaint Isle of Man cottages to hit.

I'm not saying turn all trail centers into Afan, I'm just saying that I've seen some pretty ****ing stupid things that were blatantly obvious at many trail centers and downhill tracks. I don't think we should have a legalized culture of safety and all the litigation that does with it - I do think that the community should spend a little more time thinking about it informally among themselves.

hing is you can trip over on the street walking and hit your head, resulting in a bleed on the brain and death. What then? Soft impact surfaces on the pavements? Well, a bit like all children's playgrounds are now no fun or risk. In my day it was concrete surface to land on. Knocked some sense into some kids

Yeah, tell you what....lets go back to the dark years of F1....for the lolz....things are only fun when people die.

How many of you wear helmets?

I wear a helmet,knee pads and do drops that could break my neck. Controlled risk which some day might go wrong. If there is zero risk, zero fun.

I'm not saying turn all trail centers into Afan, I'm just saying that I've seen some pretty **** stupid things that were blatantly obvious at many trail centers and downhill tracks. I don't think we should have a legalized culture of safety and all the litigation that does with it - I do think that the community should spend a little more time thinking about it informally among themselves.

This does somewhat change the original message Tom, but now I think I find what you are saying more reasonable.

I'm an old guy. I was going to go with some youngsters (40 and 50 yr olds) for a 3 day weekend round Snowdonia. Turns out it's going to be windy tomorrow so I'm doing a day windsurfing off the welsh coast then a lot of drinking then 2 days biking.
Somebody might die.
Risks known in advance.

Risk mitigation's a big part of what we do when digging with the FC. Not avoidance; even if we could avoid all risk we wouldn't. But reducing unneccesary risk. Like, if you have a jump or drop, you check out the fall zone and make sure there's nothing in there that'll make a crash worse than it has to be- rocks, stumps etc. Basically the same ideas as runoff. Clear sightlines so that people know where they're going, clear trail verges etc.

And that does take into account trees too- not that we cut healthy trees down if it's at all avoidable (if nothing else, a tree is less dangerous than a stump, and extracting stumps is a pain in the arse). Rather, we place the track to minimise the risk in the first place. A high speed straight won't usually have a big tree right at the end of it,so that if you go straight on, you don't just get planked. And we brash (debranch) a broad section around the trail, and smooth the branch scar to remove "death spikes" so that if you do steam into a tree you're less likely to get stabbed, or to lose an eye.

Without knowing the corner I wouldn't want to comment on specifics but clearing the entire radius of a corner exit of trees is a big area- not something we'd consider. Generally we'd avoid a tree in the main exit- ie, straight on. And we'd try and avoid them in the "near miss" of running wide out the corner, to avoid "running wide" becoming "smack bar on tree, crash"

But exit speeds if you make the corner (or nearly) are usually smaller and you're more in control of your options, so it's a lower concern. And trees can help define a corner, helping keep people on track.

The most noticable difference between a well made trail and a shonky one in forest is generally about drainage and branches tbh. That, and hazards in obvious fall zones- especially fallen trees dragged to the outside of corners, rocks cast off the trail into downslopes

All, thanks for your thoughts and good wishes.

Tom_w1987: I think you understand.
Northwood:

And we'd try and avoid them in the "near miss" of running wide out the corner, to avoid "running wide" becoming "smack bar on tree, crash"

This is exactly what this tree is, and that is proved by Mark's tragic demise. I simply don't want anyone else to have to go through the pain and loss that Mark's family and friends have endured, when it could be avoided, a lesson could be learnt and we could at least know that something positive could come out of it - Nobody should be able to die there again.

I know you can't look at every tree and take out the ones that look like they might be a problem - that would be impractical. However, is it too much to consider doing something about the one that we know for certain was involved in someone's death? Just to make sure another freak accident doesn't happen again? Perhaps I am too involved to think clearly. It seems logical to me to try to learn from accidents in order to prevent the same mistakes. Surely that is our moral duty?

Nobody should be able to die there again.

Perhaps I am too involved to think clearly. It seems logical to me to try to learn from accidents in order to prevent the same mistakes. Surely that is our moral duty?

I talked to some people about pads on tree's etc. the whole risk assessment in mitigation side. You remove this one tree (and the stump)this says that you have deemed the tree to be too great a risk, next year somebody hits another tree and you then face charges that you didn't remove that on as it was dangerous, if you knew the first one was why didn't you act on all of them.

My thought may be different having raced DH in Shropshire and other spots where you spend your time aiming directly at tree's then catching the rut/edge to turn.

Just to make sure another freak accident doesn't happen again?

It's not that people are designing dangerous tracks but that riding carries risk.

Although I didn't know Mark, having hit something stationary (side of a car) at speed and coming off rather badly, I think about him and what might have been for me rather often. It put my crash into a context I had not previously considered (although everyone around me had!)

Accidents happen to real people. People we know and people we don't know. My family has, like plenty of others, been touched with several tragedies. We try and mitigate risk to a reasonable degree, but sometimes bad stuff happens. Deaths from riding off road are rare, but they bring it home when they do happen.

RIP Mark.

Mikewsmith, I understand your response, and it is a common view obviously. We can't make the world totally safe. But also, we do have airbags on steering wheels (despite the cost) and not a spike instead (which would be a better deterrent). Northwood said trail designers / builders remove low branches that could blind someone, so they see a risk and they do something about it. But in this case a risk of people dying has been clearly shown to exist, yet no-one seems willing to consider doing anything about it. It just doesn't compute. To use another analogy: if there is someone that has been proven to be a danger to your kids, they are taken away - you wouldn't argue to leave them there and parade your kids past them everyday because it makes life "exciting" would you? Just because we do a risky sport/pastime, that does mean we should ignore unacceptable risks. After all, most of us do wear pads and helmets. From the sounds of some of the comments above you should take those off as it would make riding that bit more exciting. I for one ride for the speed and flow downhill after the technical and physical challenge of climbing uphill. Now, I get less of that speed/flow reward as I see far more risk from certain trees which I was ignorant of their risk before Mark's misfortune opened my eyes. I no longer get pleasure from the runs where such risks are present. It is a fine balance and you can't please all of the people all of the time. The sad thing is I struggle to get the enthusiasm to ride there (or anywhere) anymore now that my buddy has gone. I don't blame him for that, just myself.

Tragic though it is, one incident doesn't make good statistics.

If everyone who went down the trial smacked into a particular tree, there might be a case for moving the trail.

Not cutting the tree, that would be madness. The tree was there before the trail was put near it.

But most people manage to ride the trail without incident. Accidents will still happen, sad, but true.

Wouldn't it be easier to remodel the corner?

Any activity can cause injury. If you are worried that a activity may cause you injury dont do it. If you do decide to do it, then embrace the the dangers as part of the whole experience.

If we take ripmk's logic and apply it to roads, there would be constant roadworks remodelling junctions and bends all year round to make them safer.
People make errors of judgement when driving (or riding etc) and a small minority pay the ultimate price for their error.
You cant go remodelling the world to mitigate every possible risk from an infinite number of possible error scenarios.
Its one tree which happened to cause one death due to pilot error. Please don't decide for the rest of us what is best for us based on an emotional knee jerk reaction.

I'm pretty sure ripmk's argument is based upon emotions as well as logic right now..he recently lost his mate in a tragic accident....I think I'd feel the same way as him at this point in time..

If we're going to have padded trees, manicured forests, North Shore features, let's stop calling this aspect of cycling mountainbiking, and change it to Big Wheel BMX.

Wouldn't it be easier to remodel the corner?

Without wanting to sound like victim blaming, I don't even know which tree on that corner Mark hit. But the fact is Mark hit a tree, the tree didn't hit him. There isn't one tree that stands out to me as being more dangerous than the rest on that trail. And I'm not sure any are close enough to clip bars on unless you're already off the trail.

The first time I rode the trail after the accident i was taken by surprise to see riders stopped at the memorial (I stopped next time for a quiet 5 minutes), it's not a place I'd consider dangerous being a relatively smooth, off the brakes flat out section, when I heard the news I was sure it was on the earlier rollers or the stepdown at the end (both of which IIRC were re-modeled after accidents).

Which goes to show how difficult it would be to come up with a rule for how close a trail can get to trees. Look at other trails like Seagull, Satans Grotto, or W9Y which get much much closer to the trees.

I don't feel entirely comfortable arguing it in this thread but Tom's idea is completely wrong. By all means make specific DH race tracks as safe as possible, but trails should not be held to the same standards. We don't coerce people to ride Swinely at high speeds, there's no race, it's a different ball game. Part of Mountianbiking is knowing your limits and sticking within them, if you're not comfortable with a gap in the trees, slow down and take it easy. Further than that, there are 1000's of miles of bridleways lined with trees, these are held to an even lower standard, they don't (IIRC) even need to be passable to bikes, only horses (which gives a lower threshold, but thats a different argument).

Unfortunately with this kind of thing there is no middle ground, you have to make a rule and apply it evenly. Judging that that specific tree is dangerous can't be done in isolation, the odds of someone hitting that tree must be 1 in a million, to effectively prevent that happening again you don't cut down the 1, that does nothing, you'd have to go after the million or so trees that line trail centers all round the country. Otherwise all you're achieving is making a rule that says "trees like this are dangerous", but doing nothing about it. Or the current state of play, which is to accept that trees are dangerous, but that the risk of hitting one is acceptable relative to both the odds of hitting one, and the usually minor consequences (hands up who hasn't hugged a tree at high speed and come off fine, in fact I've hit a similar one in Guisborough and it saved me from a big drop over the side of the trail!).

Reductio ad absurdium:
Should the whole world be padded to make it safe for base jumpers and wing suits? There's an accepted level of risk in everything, from playing darts to base jumping. By doing those things you have to take responsibility and accept that you're there by choice.

If we're going to have padded trees, manicured forests, North Shore features, let's stop calling this aspect of cycling mountainbiking, and change it to Big Wheel BMX.

Have you seen some of the risks bmx'rs take?

Sunnydaze is right. I would just say to all those that love mountain biking and do it because it makes them feel alive and they enjoy the adrenalin etc. Keep in the back of your mind that it isn't just you out there riding the trails - you take all your friends ans family with you. They don't have a choice regarding the risks you take but do have to live with the consequences, be careful out there, keep within your limits and be safe, if not for yourselves, do it for your families.

If we're going to have padded trees, manicured forests, North Shore features, let's stop calling this aspect of cycling mountainbiking, and change it to Big Wheel BMX.

Bro, do you even downhill? (joke line) 😆 But seriously have you seen how many padded trees they have on WC courses?

So you're more hardcore than those guys hey?

Unfortunately with this kind of thing there is no middle ground, you have to make a rule and apply it evenly. Judging that that specific tree is dangerous can't be done in isolation, the odds of someone

Bollocks, the odds of hitting a tree on the outside of a berm with a high speed entry and slow apex are much much higher than hitting one on a straight.

I don't feel entirely comfortable arguing it in this thread but Tom's idea is completely wrong. By all means make specific DH race tracks as safe as possible, but trails should not be held to the same standards. We don't coerce people to ride Swinely at high speeds, there's no race, it's a different ball game. Part of Mountianbiking is knowing your limits and sticking within them, if you're not comfortable with a gap in the trees, slow down and take it easy. Further than that, there are 1000's of miles of bridleways lined with trees, these are held to an even lower standard, they don't (IIRC) even need to be passable to bikes, only horses (which gives a lower threshold, but thats a different argument).

When I started riding at about the age of 7 - properly - trail centres were mostly plces like Coed-Y-Brenin. Old school technical trails that were slow - most offs amounted to a bruise.

These days places like Swinley allow and ecourage you to crash with twice the speed, we ride trail bikes with 64 degree head angles that encourage downhill speeds and yet attitudes to tail design have changed little. Your still considered ridiculous if you take a downhill helmet out with you on a trail on your back, even though after you've winched you're hitting similar speed to a DH track.

Trails like Swinley are manicured to fit in with the style of riding a lot of people now do and it's precisely because of that that some of them need a bit more thought in places.

@sharkattack

the photo of Esher showing the padded trees was part of the "blue" (novice) area

This is from the 1st build of the park

[img] [/img]

following a serious (life changing) accident in the early days of Esher Shore, ironically on the lowest trail (2 foot off ground) in the park the H&SE got involved and shut the the park down for nearly 8 months.

During this time we worked closely with them to develop new guidance for elevated timber 'north shore' trails in the UK. Park was completely flattened and rebuilt

the big development was grading into carefully defined blue, red and black trails

each category had a carefully defined ratios of height/width with no gaps / free drops on blue trails, and black could not be higher than 1.95m as the nearest H&S regulation that could be applied was 'working at height without restraint systems'

In the end we built few black trails as additional guidance came in that riders on black trails had to be supervised and wear additional body armour!

we tended to use the few black trails at the Jams for the visting pro riders to put on a show

[img] [/img]

you can do everything to mitigate risk, but it was an inherently dangerous activity and our insurance premiums rose every year as more and more riders got hurt. the early work we did with the H&SE simply allowed the park to re-open and remain open. we constantly rebuilt stunts and entire trails if accident patterns became evident. the entire site was covered in deep woodchip, crash pads wherever needed and "fall zones" cleared 1.5M either side of the trail with all spikes and stumps removed.

the insurance company would insist on inspecting the accident book every renewal, even though we had no further legal claims.

during the 8 years the park ran, for the first 6 years it was very successful during its peak attracting over 200 riders a week from all over the UK, plus some from further away like Mr. Wade Simmons below:

[img] [/img]

The entire experience was a real eye opener to the risks of running a publicly accessible bike park. I was somewhat glad when it all eventually closed, and I did not have to constantly worry about law suits and rider accidents. When you operate a facility that is open to riders with very different abilities you are surprised about how people manage to have accidents, in ways you would have never seen possible - the great unknown is often present in accidents which can occur on the mildest of trails.

@sharkattack

the photo of Esher showing the padded trees was part of the "blue" (novice) area, from the 2nd build of the park

This is from the 1st build of the park

[img] [/img]

the 'skyline' trail in the 2nd image is 2.8M off the ground

[img] [/img]

following a serious (life changing) accident in the early days of Esher Shore, ironically on the lowest trail (2 foot off ground) in the park the H&SE got involved and shut the the park down for nearly 8 months.

During this time we worked closely with them to develop new guidance for elevated timber 'north shore' trails in the UK. Park was completely flattened and rebuilt

the big development was grading into carefully defined blue, red and black trails

each category had a carefully defined ratios of height/width with no gaps / free drops on blue trails, and black could not be higher than 1.95m as the nearest H&S regulation that could be applied was 'working at height without restraint systems'

In the end we built few black trails as additional guidance came in that riders on black trails had to be supervised and wear additional body armour

we tended to use the few black trails at the Jams for the visting pro riders to put on a show, the rest of the times the black trails were locked using removable entry ramps

[img] [/img]

you can do everything to mitigate risk, but it was an inherently dangerous activity and our insurance premiums rose every year as more and more riders got hurt. the early work we did with the H&SE simply allowed the park to re-open and remain open. we constantly rebuilt stunts and entire trails if accident patterns became evident. the entire site was covered in deep woodchip, crash pads wherever needed and "fall zones" cleared 1.5M either side of the trail with all spikes and stumps removed.

the insurance company would insist on inspecting the accident book every renewal, even though we had no further legal claims.

during the 8 years the park ran, for the first 6 years it was very successful during its peak attracting over 200 riders a week from all over the UK, plus some from further away like Mr. Wade Simmons below:

[img] [/img]

The entire experience was a real eye opener to the risks of running a publicly accessible bike park. I was somewhat glad when it all eventually closed, and I did not have to constantly worry about law suits and rider accidents. When you operate a facility that is open to riders with very different abilities you are surprised about how people manage to have accidents, in ways you would have never seen possible - the great unknown is often present in accidents which can occur on the mildest of trails.

jam bo - Member
'If we're going to have padded trees, manicured forests, North Shore features, let's stop calling this aspect of cycling mountainbiking, and change it to Big Wheel BMX."
Have you seen some of the risks bmx'rs take?

Yup, that's why I came up with that brilliant idea. 🙂

Same sort of body abusers, just older.

But on a more serious note, separating out the categories may remove some of the bile directed at mountainbiking by the red sock brigade.

Tom w1987: I think your point about the type of trail is spot on.

Bollocks, the odds of hitting a tree on the outside of a berm with a high speed entry and slow apex are much much higher than hitting one on a straight.

I'm sorry, but to hit that particular tree you'd have to be well off the trail, it's the corner about 22seconds into this video. It's not a tree you can just clip with a bar end unless things are already going badly wrong.

When I started riding at about the age of 7 - properly - trail centres were mostly plces like Coed-Y-Brenin. Old school technical trails that were slow - most offs amounted to a bruise.

The first trail centers in the UK were the ones in North Wales, and part of the design brief was that speeds should be managed to keep them low. The second set to be built were the 7 Stanes in the early 2000's. They were much much faster, with berms to carry speed. But crucially both sets of trails were built to a set of guidelines (just different ones) that were judged to be 'safe'. Now, if there was found to be an issue with those guidelines, say loads of people were coming a cropper on doubles on blue graded runs, then you can do something about it, like specify that only table tops are allowed on blue runs. What you can't do is fill in each double as an accident occurs. That will do absolutely nothing to curb the accident rate (this is why IMHO they've made a mistake with Jump Gulley), to prevent future similar accidents you have to fill in ALL doubles on the blue. Exactly the same principal applies to trees near the track. Removing that tree in particular would do nothing to curb the accident rate, if anything it'll just result in a cut through, resulting in more speed on the next obstacle.

These days places like Swinley allow and ecourage you to crash with twice the speed, we ride trail bikes with 64 degree head angles that encourage downhill speeds and yet attitudes to tail design have changed little. Your still considered ridiculous if you take a downhill helmet out with you on a trail on your back, even though after you've winched you're hitting similar speed to a DH track.

Trails like Swinley are manicured to fit in with the style of riding a lot of people now do and it's precisely because of that that some of them need a bit more thought in places.

You'd need some evidence to show that modern bikes are
a) faster
b) crashing more

See the Rob Warner story from earlier in the week, 20year old DH bike was only 11s off the pace of a new one (and the old one was 2 sizes too small and under sprung).

I quite happily ride that trail on a rigid fat bike (and according to strava, in 60% of the time/1.5x the speed that guy in the video does it), and I've rarely felt out of my comfort zone.

Now, back to the topic of trees, you say Swinley needs some attention 'in places', Deerstalker can be ridden at similar speeds to Kevlar, and is a LOT tighter, which is why you can't just remove that tree in isolation, if it was a genuinely unacceptable danger then you would have to clear fell deerstaker/labrynth too because there is no point on that hillside more than a couple of meters from the trail.

[img] [/img]

@esher - very thought provoking post sharing first hand experiences

The reality is that speed killed MK not the tree. Trees are not inherently dangerous. Hug a tree, it doesn't hurt. Smash into a tree at speed. It hurts. Lie down on the ground. It doesn't hurt, Smash into the ground at speed. It hurts. Speed is the determining factor. If we adopt a policy of trees are bad, you'd have to cull half the forest, red 25 is one of the most open areas under the forest canopy. All over the country, and I mean [i]all over[/i] there are faster trails with closer trees. If this was a real issue then we'd be hearing about more than the occasional freak accident. If it was felt that people are riding beyond sensible limits then changing the trail to reduce speed would be far more effective in reducing accidents. As a friend of mine says if you're banging your head against a wall don't put a crash helmet on. If people (as a collective mass) are riding faster than the collective skill can likely sustain you need to address the speed issue first and foremost. The reason why DH races use pads is because the likely effect of any crash will be accentuated by the increased velocity of the racer. Also, and really very importantly, they are pay to play events, and so there is an expected obligation to take safety to the maximum level practical.

While I totally agree the trail would be safer without the tree. It would be safer without many things. If you make the trails [i]safe[/i] then the won't be worth riding, therefore you have to accept some risk, and personally, I think that specific tree is acceptable risk.

When I started riding at about the age of 7 - properly - trail centres were mostly plces like Coed-Y-Brenin. Old school technical trails that were slow - most offs amounted to a bruise.

These days places like Swinley allow and ecourage you to crash with twice the speed,

Trails like Swinley are manicured to fit in with the style of riding a lot of people now do

attitudes to tail design have changed little.

Well, either design has changed or it hasn't. You can't really have it both ways...

There is no mention of him hitting a tree in that report?

Do people know he definitely hit a tree, the report states his injuries were from falling forward.

Good point sancho. Anybody got an answer ?

We're all generally guilty about judging an event by its consequences, but glossing over the actions that led to the consequences.

The tree's position (I don't know the exact spot) might in itself not be hazardous, but a combination of speed and a partiular type of fall may have been the ingredients to make that tree hazardous in that instance.

The next accident at that spot will in all likelihood have a different set of ingredients from a different rider speed, weight and fall type. Therefore in all likelihood there wouldn't be an issue with that particular tree.

That in my mind would make this a tragic Accident. It should remind us not to be blasé about the risks, to take precautions such as wearing adequate protection and controlling speed into and out of challenging sections.

I hope Marks family take solace in the fact he died doing something he enjoyed and I would like to express my condolences to them and his friends.

I recall riding in Moab years ago on a trail that my memory thinks was the Whole Enchilada. There was one section that was really exposed; a narrow trail that had a sheer drop what looked 1000ft into the river.

The guide said if you fell there 'you'd starve to death before you hit the bottom'

In a litigous society like the US, you'd think there would be a guardrail, or it would be banned. Instead there was a grown-up assertion that you shouldn't fall off.

Someone had a nasty accident. The only way to absolutely not have another would be to not do anything.

Is that genuinely what Mark Kingston would think is a good outcome from his accident?

This is simply a tragic and rare accident. Mountain biking is risky, but very few people die as a result of accidents (deaths from medical episodes are a little higher).

Anything could cause you to suddenly be heading towards a tree. I've seen it plenty enough. One of our rides, our guy over a jump, front wheel just twisted a little on landing I think and next thing he's hugging the tree way off to the side. It's not the tree's fault.

I should think CE or whoever have no reason to be concerned here. As mentioned earlier about statistics, this is something rare. The gully on the other hand featured high in accident stats, hence it was demolished.

Even on roads, one death doesn't force the introduction of traffic calming measures. Several does though (there's a threshold they use I believe, not sure how much).

See the Rob Warner story from earlier in the week, 20year old DH bike was only 11s off the pace of a new one (and the old one was 2 sizes too small and under sprung).

Good post with some very valid point - but the difference in times was made up in corners and technical sections. 11 seconds is a HUGE difference in speed through those sections.

Well, either design has changed or it hasn't. You can't really have it both ways...

In terms of safety.