Frequently Asked Questions about
Mountain Biking
Michael Vandeman, Ph.D.
Last Updated November 9, 2009
1. Why do people mountain bike?
a.
They 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.
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 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.
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.
e.
They want to get to
their destination faster (not considering 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.
f.
Example: "What do you enjoy most about mountain
biking?" "Just the experience of being out in a forest on a
trail, just flowing down it and enjoying the scenery. I know it sounds cheesy,
but you really become one with nature. At the same time, there's the adrenaline
rush you get from downhills and runner's high from
climbing. It's a lot of stuff that's hard to put into words." Steve Ray,
mountain biker
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. The tourism
industry also promotes mountain biking, among other attractions.
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! 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?). Mountain bikers themselves use the expression "shred
trails" for mountain biking. That is not an accident. That is exactly what
knobby tires are designed to do! (http://blogs.bikemag.com/news/diamondback-welcomes-billy-lewis/:
"Northwest shredder Billy Lewis is now riding for Diamondback. ... Filmed
at Duthie Hill and NWSOF.com(windells) as well as a couple secret spots.")
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 (e.g.
see http://bb.nsmb.com/showthread.php?t=128889). 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. 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.
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? 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.
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).
e.
Knobby 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.
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!)
g.
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.
h.
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….
i.
Allowing mountain
bikes in a park greatly increases the damage 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.
For the science on
mountain biking and its impacts on wildlife and people, see http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.
4. Mountain bikers claim that their sport 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
that 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.) See http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.
b.
On its web site, IMBA mentions recent research on mountain 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! See http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/white
and http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/marion.
c.
Why would a researcher risk his/her reputation by doing such shoddy work? For
money! And to ensure the continuance of their sport.
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 Shimano
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 sport
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 … 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 (see http://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"?) Not many mountain bikers volunteer for trail
maintenance: "We had 20 people, mostly NON-MOUNTAIN BIKERS, turn out for
the IMBA Trail Care Crew this weekend at Newberry Heritage Park. ... Would have
been nice to see other riders there helping out, but it's
average for only 1-2% of mountain bikers (nationally) to donate time to building
or maintenance." Mountain
bikers claim that they perform a valuable service by maintaining trails. But if
not properly trained and managed, they can easily cause millions of dollars in
damage and death to wildlife and people: there are hidden costs associated with
it down the road that will cost substantial money (e.g. erosion, fire). For
example, two mountain bikers doing unauthorized
"trail maintenance" started a fire that destroyed 80 homes!: http://www.independent.com/news/jesusita-fire.
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 <mitchell@schnauzers.ws>
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, Sports Authority, etc.) is going to be
JUNK. If 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 transportation 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 and http:/home.pacbell.net/mjvande/mtb_dangerous.
Bicycling also reduces bone density: http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-he-cycling16-2009feb16,0,1785648.story.
A bicycle is an energy-saving device. In fact, according to a "Scientific
American" article, it is the most energy-efficient of all forms of
transportation. For healthful exercise, nothing can beat walking.
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
opportunities are within easy bicycling distance, the vast majority of
mountain bike trips require transporting 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 (see http://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. The profit from bicycle sales goes abroad! The small
shops and bike mechanics find it hard to make a living. So, IMBA isn't
supporting much USA business; IMBA is supporting foreign companies and their
renegade sport. 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. Aren't mountain bikers just
hikers with wheels, and don't they care about protecting the land as much as
conservationists? I am going to quote a friend, who said it much better
than I ever could: "What comes across very strongly to me is that this is
like the Biblical fable of Solomon trying to decide which woman is the real
mother to a baby. Sick of their bickering, he threatens to cut the baby in half
and give half to each. The true mother cries out in objection, saying she would
rather he gave the baby to the other woman than killed. That's how Solomon knew
who the real mother was. What does this have to do with mountain bikers and the
wilderness? It seems to me that the mountain bikers commenting in this thread
really don't care about the land unless they can use it. They would just as
soon the land not be protected as 'wilderness' at all,
than be declared off-limits to them. If they really cared about the wilderness,
they would say, please preserve the land, even if we cannot use it. And in
fact, as Mike correctly states, the land would still open to their use. Just without the bicycle."
21. How can I see first-hand
the harm that mountain biking does? Easy! Just watch their
own videos: http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/mtbvideo.
22. IMBA
has rules designed to minimize the impacts of mountain biking, such as not
riding under wet conditions. Don't they protect the parks from damage?
IMBA's "rules" are just for show, and are universally ignored.
So much for IMBA's rule about not riding under wet
conditions! They could stick to pavement, but they are too selfish to do so:
"Date:
Sat, 23 Jan 2010 21:15:01 -0800
From:
Ross Finlayson <finlayson@live555.com>
Subject:
Your favorite 'midst of the wet season' rides?
At this
time of the year (especially during an 'El Nino' winter like this one), we
often find ourselves wanting to ride just a couple of days after a major rainy
spell. Most of the trails are too muddy
to ride, but there are a few trails (mostly fireroads)
that hold up OK even after heavy rain.
In the
past, my favorite 'midst of the wet season' ride was the main (Aptos Creek) fireroad in Nisene Marks - from
Aptos up to Sand Point overlook and back.
But even that fireroad often gets very wet.
My new
favorite 'midst of the wet season' ride - which I did again today - is at Butano State Park: Up the Butano Fireroad, past the abandoned airstrip, then down Olmo Fireroad, and back along the
paved road. This is a 12-mile loop with
2000' of total climbing , and holds up well
(especially the Butano Fireroad)
even after a long period of heavy rain, such as we had this past week.
So lets hear your favorite 'midst of the wet season' rides?
Ross."
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.