On Nov 28, 8:23=A0pm, Mike Vandeman <mjva...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Frequently Asked Questions about Mountain Biking
> Michael Vandeman, Ph.D.
> Last Updated October 4, 2008
>
> 1. Why do people mountain bike?
> a. =A0 =A0 =A0They 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
> were unable to walk. Of course, they are able to walk. There's nothing
> inherently wrong with bicycling instead of walking; 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. =A0 =A0 =A0They 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 cra****ng. That makes 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. =A0 =A0 =A0They 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. =A0 =A0 =A0They 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.
> e. =A0 =A0 =A0They want to get to their destination faster (not
consideri=
ng
> that the process of getting there is a major part of the enjoyment).
> Once, when much younger, I was hiking along a very boring trail. The
> thought came to me that if I had a bike, I could get past the boring
> section of the trail, and to the interesting part much faster. But
> about 2 seconds later I realized that if I could do that, so could
> everyone else, and the place would be full of people and ruined. That
> was the end of my (2-second) mountain biking career.
>
> 2. What is driving the s****t 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. The tourism industry
> also promotes mountain biking, among other attractions.
>
> 3. What harm does mountain biking do?
> a. =A0 =A0 =A0Most obvious is the acceleration of erosion. Knobby tires
r=
ip
> 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! To give a definite number, the winner of a
> 20-mile race here in Briones Regional Park averaged 13 MPH (the speed
> limit is 15 MPH -- where were the park rangers?).
> b. =A0 =A0 =A0A hiker must be very careful not to accidentally step on
sm=
all
> 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
> s****, it is hard for them to stop in time to avoid killing it. 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, cru****ng 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. Not only do bikes destroy animals and plants as they ride
> across streams, they ride through streams stirring up sediment. The
> sediment in the water interferes with the oxygen uptake by aquatic
> life, for example, killing fish- and frog eggs. Young fish, insects,
> amphibians, and aquatic microorganisms are extremely sensitive to
> sediment in water.
> c. =A0 =A0 =A0Bikes 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? In other words, allowing bikes
> in a park greatly increases human presence in that park and drives
> wildlife further from the resources that they need to survive,
> including water, food, and mates.
> d. =A0 =A0 =A0Due 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).
> e. =A0 =A0 =A0Knobby mountain bike tires are ideal for carrying mud, and
> consequently exotic plants, fungi, and other organisms from place to
> place, resulting in the spread of exotic invasive species, such as
> weeds and Sudden Oak Death.
> f. =A0 =A0 =A0Mountain biking is driving the very young and old off of
th=
e
> 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!)
> g. =A0 =A0 =A0Mountain 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.
> h. =A0 =A0 =A0In order to mitigate bike-caused erosion, park managers
hav=
e
> 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=85.
> i. =A0 =A0 =A0Allowing mountain bikes in a park greatly increases the
dam=
age
> to the trails, damage from "bootleg" (illegally created) trails, and
> the problems of conflicts between trail users, and hence the cost of
> maintaining the park. Considering how tight park budgets are, we can't
> afford the extra costs of policing, and repairing the damage from,
> mountain biking.
> j. =A0 =A0 =A0For the science on mountain biking and its impacts on
wildl=
ife
> and people, seehttp://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.
>
> 4. Mountain bikers claim that their s****t has no greater environmental
> impact than hiking. Is that true?
> a. 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. Actually,
> the comparison with hiking is irrelevant. It would only be relevant if
> we planned to allow only one of the two, and were considering which of
> the two is more harmful. In fact, no one is considering banning
> hiking. We are only considering adding mountain biking. Therefore, the
> only relevant question is, "Is mountain biking harmful"? (Of course,
> it is!) There is only one truly scientific study that I know of =A0that
> compares the impacts of hiking and mountain biking. It found that
> mountain biking has a greater impact on elk than hiking (Wisdom, M.
> J., H. K. Preisler, N. J. Cimon, B. K. Johnson. 2004. Effects of
> Off-Road Recreation on Mule Deer and Elk. Transactions of the North
> American Wildlife and Natural Resource Conference 69, 2004,
> pp.531-550.) Seehttp://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 b. On its web site, IMBA mentions recent research on
moun=
tain
> biking by Dave White et al and Jeff Marion, both of whom claim that
> mountain biking and hiking have "similar" impacts. Is that true?
> First, "similar" is not a scientific term and really has no clear
> meaning. That term is being used only to obfuscate. Second, these are
> survey studies, not experimental studies. By its very nature, a survey
> study cannot be used to compare the impacts from two activities,
> because it doesn't control all the variables. For example, we don't
> know if the differences in erosion between two trails are due to the
> mountain biking vs. hiking use, or due to differences in the weather,
> terrain, steepness, soil type, management practices, amount of use,
> hikers on the "mountain biking trail", mountain bikers on the "hiking
> trail", etc. White et al only measured their trails once, and didn't
> even collect any data on hiking impacts!
Seehttp://home.pacbell.net/mjvan=
de/whiteandhttp://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/marion.
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 c. Why would a researcher risk his/her reputation by
doin=
g
> such shoddy work? For money! And to ensure the continuance of their
> s****t. If land managers think that mountain biking is more harmful
> than hiking, they will be more likely to close trails to bikes. Bike
> parts manufacturer ****mano paid Professor White to do his study.
> Research funds are difficult to obtain. A researcher who can be relied
> upon to produce research favorable to mountain biking will be able to
> obtain funding from the mountain biking industry. A researcher who
> tells the truth about mountain biking won't be able to obtain research
> funds and will risk stunting his/her career.
>
> 5. 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 s****t for over a
> hundred years, without riding off-road.
>
> 6. 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.
>
> 7. Isn't it discriminatory to allow hikers and equestrians on trails,
> but not mountain bikers? Mountain bikers love to say this, 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 =85 they already have access to every trail in
> the world!
>
> 8. 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
> (seehttp://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/mtb10).
>
> 9. 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"?)
>
> 10. 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!
>
> 11. Can't mountain biking help get our overweight kids off the couch?
> Hiking can already do that, without causing extra harm to wildlife and
> people. Mountain biking downhill provides zero exercise benefit.
> Mountain biking on level ground provides minimal exercise benefit,
> much less than walking. Since it's impossible to pay any attention to
> your surroundings while mountain biking (or you will crash), there's
> no reason to promote mountain biking. It benefits only those who stand
> to make money off of it, such as bike manufacturers, retailers, and
> tour companies. Mountain biking is also inappropriate for young people
> because it's very expensive!
>
> "Fri, Aug 10 2007:
> Newsgroups: alt.mountain-bike
> From: Ride-A-Lot <mitch...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007
> Subject: Re: need suggestions on mountain bike, thanks a lot
> Any bike you buy from a big box store (i.e. Target, Wal-Mart, Dicks,
> S****ts Authority, etc.) is going to be JUNK. =A0If you ware going to do
> any actual mountain biking, you will very very disappointed with the
> performance. For a new mountain bike, the low-end entry level bike
> Specialized Rockhopper is one) will cost around $500."
>
> (Mountain bikes are built tough because street bikes can't take the
> pounding that they would get on trails. They would fall apart.)
>
> 12. But isn't mountain biking healthful exercise? No! Mountain biking
> is inherently dangerous, and cannot be made safe. Hiking trails are
> not designed for bicycling. They are unpredictable. There is a reason
> why departments of trans****tation have standards for bicycle trails
> that require a smooth surface, not too steep a grade, a no-skid
> surface, a minimum width, a long sight distance (no blind turns), etc.
> Mountain bikers regularly fall off their bikes, resulting in
> paraplegia, quadriplegia, or even death. This obviously cancels out
> any possible health benefit. See
> http:/home.pacbell.net/mjvande/mtb_death.
>
> 13. Doesn't mountain biking get people out of their cars? So do
> walking, road cycling, and transit use, without harm to the natural
> environment. Since very few mountain biking op****tunities are within
> easy bicycling distance, the vast majority of mountain bike trips
> require trans****ting the bike in a truck, SUV, or car. If mountain
> bikers cared about the environment, they would bicycle to the park,
> lock their bike at the trailhead, and hike. Or simply bicycle on paved
> roads, as bicyclists have for the past century.
>
> 14. Doesn't the threat from mountain biking pale, in comparison to
> other sources of environmental damage, such as logging? Maybe, and
> maybe not. Mountain biking teaches people that the rough treatment of
> nature is acceptable, so it may lead to many other abuses. In parks,
> where most mountain biking is done, it is probably the most harmful
> activity allowed. But even if mountain biking is less damaging than
> another activity, such as logging, it is still additional damage. If
> an area is already messed up (e.g. by logging), how does that make it
> okay to do additional damage? It doesn't!
>
> 15. What's wrong with night riding? Humans have been destroying
> wildlife habitat for centuries, so that very little remains. Our
> presence in parks prevents wildlife from using a large part of their
> habitat, at least during the daytime. Now that night riding is
> becoming popular, wildlife and being denied that habitat even at
> night, or incur an increased risk getting run over, if they attempt to
> use it. There is very little law enforcement even during the day in
> these days of tight budgets. There is no patrolling of parks at night!
> This gives mountain bikers free rein to do whatever they want,
> including riding trails that are closed to bikes or even building
> their own illegal trails. No wonder night riding is so popular! And,
> of course, night riding makes an activity that is already very
> dangerous, much more dangerous.
>
> 16. Don't the vast majority of mountain bikers ride responsibly?
> Actually, just the opposite is true. In a scientific study that IMBA
> had on their website for a while, then quietly removed, 83.1% of
> mountain bikers broke the law
(seehttp://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/mtb76).
>
> 17. Aren't the problems with mountain biking just caused by "a few bad
> apples"? There aren't just a few! There are enough to put some in just
> about every park in the world. The same problems appear everywhere:
> riding off-trail, riding where prohibited, illegal trail construction,
> excessive speed, accelerating erosion, killing plants and animals on
> and next to the trail, driving other trail users off the trails, etc.
>
> 18. Isn't mountain biking good for the economy? Nearly all mountain
> bicycles are made by foreign companies. =A0The profit from bicycle sales
> goes abroad! =A0The small shops and bike mechanics find it hard to make
> a living. So, IMBA isn't sup****ting much USA business; IMBA is
> sup****ting foreign companies and their renegade s****t. Mountain biking
> destroys wildlife habitat and drives non-mountain bikers off of the
> trails, so there is a net loss in recreation. This can't be good for
> the economy. As David Brower used to say, "There's no economy on a
> dead planet".
>
> 19. Why is mountain biking so addicting? It seems that once someone
> starts mountain biking, they feel a need to do it as often as possible
> - at least weekly. And they become impervious to information about the
> harm that mountain biking does. (That's why it is extremely
> unfortunate when land managers or their staff start mountain biking.)
> Apparently, some people have an especially strong desire or "need" for
> danger and thrills, and it seems to be accompanied by an unusually low
> concern for the welfare of wildlife, the environment, non-bikers, or
> anything else that gets in the way of their thrill-seeking. A
> phenomenon that may be related is the existence of psychopaths --
> people who seem to be genetically devoid of moral feeling. See
> _Without Conscience: The Disturbing World of the Psychopaths Among
> Us_, by the brilliant scientist Dr. Robert Hare. I highly recommend
> his book. As far as I know, in Hare's terminology, mountain bikers are
> sociopaths, not psychopaths.
>
> 20. How can I see first-hand the harm that mountain biking does? Easy!
> Just watch their own videos:http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/mtbvideo.
>
> Note: I was the Chair of the Wildlife Committee of the Sierra Club's
> San Francisco Bay Area Chapter for a decade. During the same period, I
> studied conservation biology and the environmental impacts of mountain
> biking, which are summarized in my paper "The Impacts of Mountain
> Biking on Wildlife and People -- A Review of the
Literature":http://home.=
pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.
> --
> 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.)
>
> Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are
=
fond of!
>
> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
Frequently asked question about Mike Vandeman: Do you have a life, or
do you just spend endless hours on the internet *****ing about MTBers?
|
