Bicycle/Jogging Trail Etiquette

My past posts concerning cycling have all had to do with bikes on the road, but many cyclists spend most of their time on trails. There is a certain etiquette that is expected of all users of a bike trail, whether on two wheels, more wheels, or no wheels. (By bike trail, I mean a paved trail intended for use by the public for walking, biking, jogging, roller skating, etc. Rails-to-trails projects are good examples of what I mean. I do not mean mountain bike trails--I have no knowledge of the etiquette on those trails.)

A long time ago, trail users were few and everyone just "knew" the etiquette or picked it up by watching others. These days, trails are much more popular (this is a good thing), but no one ever teaches people trail etiquette. The following are just a few of the rules. If you think of some that I've left out, please feel free to add them in the comments section.

1. Keep right. This is the most fundamental rule of trail etiquette. It doesn't matter if you're riding a bike, jogging, or out for a Sunday stroll. You should keep to the right half of the trail. Trails (usually) have no center line, but neither do some roads and on those roads, cars are also expected to keep right. It's the same thing. It is, in fact, mildly rude to be jogging up the left side of the trail and forcing those going the other direction to go around you, yet I encounter many people doing just that every time I ride a trail. I used to run regularly on trails--that's how I learned trail etiquette, so I know it's the same for everyone. Keep right!
   
2. Pass left. If everyone is keeping to the right then obviously you need to pass on the left, correct? Apparently not; I have been within a foot of the right-hand side of a trail and had another cyclist actually leave the trail to pass me on the right. He gave no warning that he was passing (see below) and blew by at high speed. There was plenty of room on the left for him to pass since we were the only two on that section of the trail.
   
   A corollary to this one is that you need to look behind you before moving left to pass. For all you know, someone else is about to pass you on the left and if you move out in front of them there could be a nasty crash.
   
3. Give warning before passing. You need to warn others before you pass them, whether it's a shouted warning (I usually yell, "Bike on the left!"), a bell, a horn, or some other audible warning, you need to make some sound. Not doing so is not only extremely rude, it's downright dangerous. People on trails have a tendency to suddenly change direction without warning--you never know when something on the left side of the trail will get a pedestrian's attention; they could turn right in front of you without warning.
   
   You need to give your warning early enough that those you are overtaking can react by (hopefully) acknowledging the warning and/or moving out of the way. Scaring the daylights out of some poor old woman out walking her dog by yelling from a foot behind her and blowing by before she has a chance to let the words sink in is not cool.
   
   Since you're giving warning early, the sound has to be loud enough to be heard more than a foot away from you. I've heard people mutter "bike passing" before passing someone, but I could barely hear them and I was only a couple of feet away; the people they were passing never had a chance.
   
4. Turn the volume down on headphones. This rule used to be "don't wear headphones", but headphones while working out (or even just walking somewhere) are so prevalent now that the rule has to be modified. If you are wearing headphones, turn the volume down to a level that allows you to hear what's going on around you. This isn't a matter of me not wanting to hear your music; I'm only going to be next to you for a moment, so I don't care about that. This is a matter of you wanting to hear my warning that I'm going to pass. It does no good for me to give a warning if you can't hear it. I don't know how many times I've called out a warning and then scared the daylights out of someone as I passed them because they had headphones on, so had no idea I was there. I try to give people with headphones a wide berth, both to avoid scaring them and because I don't know if they heard me, so might just turn right in front of me.
   
5. Don't block the trail. If you stop to talk to someone, both of you step off the side of the trail if possible. If it's not possible to step off the trail, then stand as close to the side of the trail as possible so as to leave enough room on the trail for people to comfortably pass both ways. When you do stop (for whatever reason) look back first and make sure that you're not going to get rear ended by someone who wasn't ready for you to stop.
   
   Last fall, I came across a person who was changing a flat tire right in the middle of the trail. It was late evening, the sun was going down, and the light was failing under the trees. This person was not only being rude by blocking the entire trail, but was putting themselves and others in danger by being in the way in a poor visibility situation. Luckily, it was a chilly evening, so there weren't a lot of other trail users, but please think before squatting down in the middle of a trail. Change a tire at the side of the trail--off the side, if possible.
   
   One more form of trail-blockage is the person with a dog on a long leash. The person is politely walking along the right-hand edge of the trail, but their dog is exploring the bushes off the left side of the trail. In between is a nearly invisible leash. I've never done it or seen it, but I know someone who ran into a leash while passing someone because they never saw it. This resulted in damage to the bike; injury to the rider; injury to the person holding the leash (sprained wrist); and a dog that was frightened by the jerk on his leash, ran off while everyone was focused on the injured people, and wasn't found for close to an hour. Again, please think, folks. Keep your dog on a leash and keep that leash short enough that he/she isn't blocking the trail.
   
6. Dogs must be on a leash. Dogs are even more unpredictable than humans. A normally well-behaved dog may be startled by a jogger or bicyclist and chase them and/or bite them. Even a dog that's behaving itself might suddenly be distracted by a movement and dart across the trail in front of somebody. I see people walking dogs without leashes on trails all the time. I've even seen one man walk his dog to the trail with a leash, then take the leash off and let the dog run all over the trail. This is illegal, dangerous, and rude.

That's what I came up with off the top of my head. As I said above, feel free to add more trail etiquette rules in the comments.

How Can Hockey be Changed for the Better?

Putting aside any argument about whether hockey can be improved or not, I've been thinking about rule changes that could be put in place that at least some people would think improved the game. Some of the proposals below I think would be good for the game and some I don't, but I'm going to lay them out here without imposing my opinion as best as I can and I'd like to know what other people think. Please note: these are not my proposed rule changes, I'm just collecting several here that I've seen elsewhere.

Introduce a Goal Verification Line
This is one that was play-tested in the AHL a few years back. I think it was just as the NHL was getting back on the ice after the lost season, but I don't remember for sure. Basically, a goal verification line is a line drawn exactly one puck-width behind the goal line between the goal posts. The picture below is from the original article I read about this many years ago. I saved the picture because I thought it was interesting, but I have no idea who to credit. I think it was NHL.com.

The idea here is that if the puck is even touching the goal verification line then it is a valid goal. This is supposed to help on those goals that are too close to call even on replays because the goal line itself is blocked from view by equipment, etc.

Cease Allowing a Penalized Player to Return to the Ice After a Goal
The NHL has explicitly stated that many of the rule changes instituted since 2005 are intended to increase scoring (e.g., smaller goalie pads, the introduction of the trapezoid behind the net, and the moving of the blue lines closer to center ice). One thing that would greatly increase scoring would be eliminating the rule that allows a player serving a minor penalty to return to the ice after their team is scored on.

Believe it or not, the rule allowing a penalized player to return to the ice at that point was only instituted in 1956 (http://www.rauzulusstreet.com/hockey/nhlhistory/nhlrules.html). Prior to that time, a minor penalty lasted a full two minutes and the penalized team was a man short for that entire time (http://www.nhl.com/history/060656.html). The rule was modified to allow the penalized team to return to full strength because the Montreal Canadiens had gotten so good on the power play that they would regularly score several times in the two minutes (http://media.nesn.com/2011/03/top-10-most-important-rule-changes-in-nhl-history/5/).

Don't Allow a Shorthanded Team to Ice the Puck
As far as I know, a team  that is shorthanded has always been allowed to ice, or "rag" the puck. In fact, until 1925, play was not stopped regardless of whether the icing team was shorthanded or not (http://www.rauzulusstreet.com/hockey/nhlhistory/nhlrules.html). The idea behind taking that privilege away is once again to increase scoring. I've also heard that there are kids' leagues that don't allow a shorthanded team to ice the puck (this to encourage skill development), so it's not an unheard-of concept.

Institute No-Touch or Hybrid Icing
This one is a hugely hot topic. Many levels of play use a "no-touch" icing rule, meaning that icing is called as soon as the puck crosses the goal line, regardless of whether there is a player on the attacking team there to play the puck first or not. A lot of people have been supporting this idea because of the number of injuries sustained by players when they get knocked down during a fast race for the puck. The resulting crash is often quite awkward and results in the player slamming into the boards at 25 mph or so. Don Cherry has advocated no-touch icing for many years. (If you don't know who Don Cherry is, don't sweat it, but most hockey fans have at least heard of "Grapes".)

The argument against no-touch icing refers to maintaining the purity of the game and the excitement of the race for the puck (which is rare, yes, but exciting nonetheless). Those that argue this side are not ignoring the safety issue. The argument is that the key to preventing the often catastrophic, career-ending injuries is better enforcement of the rules about interference, checking from behind, and boarding. The idea is that if a player knows that he'll be called for a penalty if he so much as touches his opponent in that vulnerable situation then he'll lay off.

In an effort to keep the race for the puck but eliminate the injuries incurred by crashing into the end boards, the concept of "hybrid" icing was developed. Many leagues have adopted this approach, including the NCAA, and it was play-tested in the AHL a few years ago. The exact rules for hybrid icing vary from implementation to implementation, but the basic idea is that there is an invisible line across the ice somewhere far from the end boards (frequently between the face off dots). Icing is called if the usual requirements are met and the first player to cross that invisible line is a defender. It is not called if the first player across that line is an attacker.

Institute Stiffer Penalties for Fighting/Ban Fighting
If no-touch icing is a hot topic then fighting is scorching. On the one hand, you have the people who want to ban fighting, who are pointing out head injuries that occur as a result of fights and that most 'enforcers' are really not skilled players and don't belong in an elite league. On the other hand, you have those who say that fighting is part of the game and that those who want it removed aren't real hockey fans (this is frequently stated using crude insults, which kind of undermines the argument  if you ask me).

Among arguments for keeping the fighting rules just as they are in the NHL, tops is probably "it's part of the game; leave it alone." The next argument usually points out that if pests such as Sean Avery or Matt Cooke don't know that they're going to have to fight the opponents' enforcer then they'll continue to make dirty hits and attempt to injure other players. (Different topic, but Matt Cooke has actually changed his ways. It would be nice if people noticed that.) Finally, the argument is frequently made that hockey is a rough sport and by removing fighting, you remove some of the 'manliness' from it. (Frequently, a reference is made to figure skating at this point.)

Arguments for banning fighting altogether include the injury argument mentioned above as well as opening up the spots currently taken by team enforcers for more skilled players. Fighting is not a part of the game, this side argues, because if it was then the game wouldn't stop whenever a fight broke out and there wouldn't be any penalties. Besides, look at international hockey (such as the Olympics and World Championships); fighting is banned in international hockey and you see some of the best hockey you ever will at that level. This side also points out that dirty plays exist now, so there's no basis for arguing that fighting deters dirty plays. In fact, many fights are started after a good, clean, solid check is made, so the argument can be made that fighting actually discourages good, solid checks, which are undeniably part of the game.

Eliminate the Shootout
The shootout is apparently very popular amongst fans, but there are those who don't like it because they feel that it's not really hockey. Hockey is a team sport, the argument goes, so something so individual as a shootout should not decide a game. Either allow for endless overtimes or accept ties. 

Replace the +/- with the Adjusted +/-
Okay, so I'm probably the only one who has ever put this forward as a 'rule' change, and it's not even technically a rule, just stats. Still, I think it would be cool to see it adopted.

There are many more proposed rule changes out there, some serious, some not-so-serious, but this is probably plenty to get any conversation rolling. Please feel free to share other ideas or to discuss those mentioned above in the comments section. Please note, however, that I do not tolerate name-calling in the comments. Any comments that include ad hominem attacks will be deleted.