Have I forgotten anything?
Frequently Asked Questions about Mountain Biking Michael Vandeman, Ph.D.
March 5, 2004
1. Why do people mountain bike?
a. They are too lazy to walk. Many of them say that using a bike allows them
to get much farther, in the same amount of time, than they can by
walking. They also maintain constant pressure on land managers, to open
more and more trails to bikes. Of course, all of these trails are already
open to them, if they choose to walk. They also frequently claim that
closing trails to bikes "excludes" them from the parks. This could only
be true if they refused to walk. (There's nothing inherently wrong with
laziness; we all like to save energy, when it's appropriate. Use of a
bicycle to replace automobile use is obviously beneficial. However, by
the same token, replacing hiking with mountain biking is obviously not
beneficial.)
b. They are interested in the quantity of nature they can see, rather than
the quality of their experience. While riding a bike, especially over
terrain as rough as a trail, one has to be constantly paying attention to
not crashing. That make it almost impossible to notice much else. By
contrast, a hiker feels the ground, hears all the sounds and smells all
the odors of nature and can stop instantly, if he/she finds something
interesting. The brain thrives on stimulation. A biker has to travel
several times as far as a hiker, to get the same stimulation as a hiker.
(And, by the same token, motorcyclists have to travel several times as
far as a bicyclist, and an auto user several times as far as a
motorcyclist, since they are enclosed in a metal box.)
c. They are interested in thrills. Riding a bike on a trail, especially a
trail containing many obstacles, or a trail one is not familiar with, is
very challenging. (But if mountain biking is the high point of your week,
as it seems to be for many mountain bikers, you must be leading a pretty
dull life, off of the bike!)
d. They are interested in building mountain biking skills and competing with
other mountain bikers. The thrill of racing drives people to spend more
money on their bike, and ride it harder and more often. Racing, up to and
including the Olympics, drives a lot of mountain biking. Of course, it is
also extremely harmful to the parks and natural areas that are used for
practice! It is hard to think of any other (legal) use of public lands,
other than hunting, that is as harmful as mountain biking.
2. What is driving the sport of mountain biking? Besides the attraction for
participants, manufacturers and retailers of mountain bikes and mountain
biking accessories, as well as "adventure" travel guides, make a lot of money
from promoting mountain biking. Even some auto manufacturers (e.g. Subaru)
promote and sponsor mountain biking, and try to use its popularity to sell
more cars.
3. What harm does mountain biking do?
a. Most obvious is the acceleration of erosion. Knobby tires rip into the
soil, loosening it and allowing rain to wash it away. They also create
V-shaped grooves that make walking difficult or even dangerous. The
mechanical advantage given by the gears and ball bearings allow a
mountain biker to travel several times as fast as a hiker. Given their
increased weight (rider plus bike), this results in vastly increased
momentum, and hence much greater horizontal (shearing) forces on the
soil. (Witness the skid marks from stops, starts, and turns.) According
to Newton, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Mountain
bikes were built much stronger than other bikes, so that they could
withstand the greater forces they were subject to on rough trails. These
same forces, therefore, are being applied to the trails!
b. A hiker must be very careful not to accidentally step on small animals
and plants on the trail. For a mountain biker, it is almost impossible to
avoid killing countless animals and plants on and under the trail. They
have to pay attention to controlling the bike, and can't afford to look
carefully at what is on the trail, especially when travelling fast. And
even if they happen to see, for example, a snake, it is hard for them to
stop in time to avoid killing it.
c. A hiker, when crossing a creek, will try to avoid getting wet, by
crossing on stepping stones or logs. Mountain bikers, on the other hand,
simply ride right through the creek bed, crushing any animals or plants
that happen to be there. Mountain biking magazines are full of photos of
mountain bikers throwing up spray, as they barrel through creeks.
d. Bikes also allow people to travel several times as far as a hiker. This
translates into several times the impacts, both on the trail and on the
wildlife (to say nothing of the other trail users). Existing parklands
are already inadequate to protect the wildlife that live there. When they
are crisscrossed by mountain bikers and legal or illegal trails, their
habitat becomes even more inadequate. Mountain bikers frequently
advertise rides of 20-50 miles or more. Have you ever tried to walk that
far in a day?
e. Due to their width and speed, bikes can't safely pass each other on
narrow trails. Therefore, policies that permit mountain biking also
result in more habitat destruction, as trails are widened by bikers (or
by hikers and equestrians jumping out of their way).
f. Knobby mountain bike tires are ideal for carrying mud, and consequently
exotic plants and fungi, from place to place, resulting in the spread of
exotic invasive species, such as weeds and Sudden Oak Death.
g. Mountain biking is driving the very young and old off of the trails and
hence out of the parks. Even able-bodied hikers and equestrians fear for
their safety, and don’t enjoy sharing the trails with bikes. (The
mountain bikers claim that they are simply being selfish and "unwilling
to share", but actually they have no problem sharing trails with mountain
bikers; it is only their bikes that are a problem!)
h. Mountain bikes, which are obviously built to go anywhere, teach children
and anyone else who sees them that the rough treatment of nature is
acceptable. This undoubtedly has a negative effect on people's treatment
of nature.
i. In order to mitigate bike-caused erosion, park managers have been
resorting to extreme measures -- even in some cases putting a plastic
matrix or other exotic material under the trail (e.g. in Pleasanton Ridge
Regional Preserve, near Pleasanton, California)! It's hard to imagine
that this will have a beneficial effect on the park and its wildlife….
3. Mountain bikers claim that their sport has no greater environmental impact
than hiking. Is that true? If you read the "studies" that make that claim,
you find that they don't really compare the impacts of hiking and mountain
biking, but only the impacts per foot. If, for a moment, we assume that the
studies are correct in their having equivalent impacts per foot, it would
still follow that mountain biking has far greater impact per person, since
mountain bikers typically travel so much farther than hikers. Besides
overlooking distances travelled, those "studies" almost all ignore impacts on
wildlife. And they don't study mountain biking under normal conditions --
only at a very slow speed.
4. Where should mountain biking allowed? A couple of role models for wildlife
protection are Yosemite National Park and East Bay Municipal Utility
District (in Alameda and Contra Costa counties, California). They both
restrict bicycles to paved roads, where they can't do much harm. Somehow
bicyclists have managed to enjoy their sport for over a hundred years,
without riding off-road.
5. What should the policy be on trails? Closed to bikes, unless marked open.
Signs that say "No Bikes" are quickly and repeatedly ripped out of the ground
by mountain bikers.
6. Isn't it discriminatory to allow hikers and equestrians on trails, but not
mountain bikers? Mountain bikers love to tell this lie, apparently because
they think it will gain them some sympathy. The truth is that mountain bikers
have exactly the same access to trails that everyone else has! It is only
their bikes that are banned. If mountain bikers were really being
discriminated against, they could easily go to court to gain access. However …
they already have access to every trail in the world!
7. Don't I have a right to mountain bike on all public lands? I am a taxpayer!
The public has the right, through its elected representatives, to restrict how
land is used. A federal court has already ruled that there is no right to
mountain bike. It is a privilege, and any land manager who gives a good reason
(such as safety or protecting the environment) can keep bikes off of trails
(see home.pacbell.netmtb10.htmOpen ↗).
8. Don't mountain bikers do some good things, like trail construction and trail
maintenance? Trail construction destroys wildlife habitat both directly (by
killing plants and animals) and indirectly (by reducing the size of the
intervening "islands" of habitat). Moreover, mountain bikers favor trails that
are "twisty" (sinuous), bumpy, and full of obstacles that provide thrills for
mountain bikers. Such designs increase habitat destruction (by lengthening the
trail) and make the trails less useful for hikers and equestrians. Trail
maintenance sounds good, until you realize that it would hardly be necessary,
if bikes weren't allowed there. The mountain bikers are the main reason why
trail maintenance is necessary! Trails used only by hikers require hardly any
maintenance. Therefore, admitting bicycles to a park greatly increases its
cost of maintenance. Nothing is really "free", including trail construction
and maintenance. (How does the saying go? "Beware of Trojans bearing gifts"?)
9. But don't mountain bikers provide added safety, by being able to quickly
summon help in the event of an emergency? I would rather trust in a cell
phone, than a speeding mountain biker. Besides, natural areas are already one
of the safest places you can be. In over 50 years of hiking and backpacking, I
have never witnessed any situation requiring emergency aid. Most people go to
natural areas partly for solitude. If we wanted to be around large, fast-
moving pieces of machinery, we would stay in the city!
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans ("pure
habitat"😉. Want to help? (I spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence
and road construction.)