Mountain Biking FAQ

On Fri, 07 Jul 2006 23:27:01 -0500, Aaron W. LaFramboise
wrote:

Dr. Vandeman,

I read your FAQ with some interest. My recent activities have clued
me in to the controversy over bicycles on trails--an issue that, until
recently, I confess I was completely oblivious to. I am also
interested in environmental concerns in general, which are why I am
asking for additional clarification and answers to a few questions I
have had.

About me: Briefly, I am a computer scientist who has recently returned
cycling, primarily recreationally, and as a commuter. Like you, I am
from California, although not living there presently. As I mentioned,
I have significant sympathy for environmental issues, in large part
due to having witnessed some of its destruction in my formative years.
My role models were very influential, as well. This is my second post
to the mountain biking newsgroup, and my first to those cross posted.

So, I'm trying to form an opinion on this issue in particular, and so
I'm hoping that your comments may aid me in coming to a better
conclusion.


1. What specific recommendation do you have regarding the issue of
mountain bikes on trails?

I couldn't figure out exactly what you are proposing. Are you
advocating wholesale ban of bicycles from unpaved surfaces?

Yes. The laws of physics and biology are the same everywhere. There's
no reason to allow bikes in natural areas, since all mountain bikers
can walk.

If not,
what cases is it acceptable for mountain bikes to use unpaved roads
and trails?

Transportation (not recreation) where there are no paved roads.

Also, are you primarily seeking to influence individual mountain
bikers, or policy makers (legislators, park officials)?

Both. But mountain bikers as a rule don't listen to anything negative
about their sport.

2. Can you be more specific about the harm mountain biking causes?

You discuss this in detail in FAQ section 3, but I'm still not quite
sure I understand. Generalizing, the harm seems to fall into two
categories: environmental damage and annoyance to other users.

And harm to wildlife (plants and animals).

In the environmental case, I understand that erosion and killing of
miscellaneous living things (hopefully not other human trail users!)
is the primary concern. Can you give more qualitative and
quantitative information about these? Also, can you justify, in
general, why these things (erosion, killing) are bad to the extent
they happen as a result of bicycles?

Natural areas are wildlife habitat. Therefore erosion & killing
wildlife are harmful.

In the annoyance case, do you feel that the level of annoyance other
trail users feel in response to encountering mountain bikes is
unacceptable? Do you feel other users, such as hikers, have any moral
imperative to tolerate bicycles, and if so, to what extent?

None, since there is a workable alternative: everyone can WALK on the
trails.

3. How much harm to trails and trail environment is OK?

None. It is wildlife habitat. At the very least, it should be
minimized, by banning bikes.

I think your arguments regarding mountain bikes being more damaging to
trails than hikers are reasonable. However, from a critical
standpoint, I do not understand why this is a problem. Why is hiking
in general acceptable, but mountain biking not?

Hiking is NOT acceptable. But we have to do what we can, and therefore
try to MINIMIZE impacts, by banning bikes off-road. I have never heard
even ONE good reason for allowing bikes off-road for recreation.

Is there some upper limit on the maximum amount of damage a trail user
may cause that the mountain bike crosses? Are you simply saying that
any practice that causes more damage than hiking is unacceptable?

Of course. Hiking causes the least amount of damage.

4. Is it possible--though changes--to accommodate mountain bikes on
trails?

No. Yosemite National Park doesn't allow bikes on trails. Why should
any other jurisdiction do anything different?

Regarding the environmental concerns, is there some new rule, policy,
or technical innovation that would enable bikes to be acceptable on
trails? (I'm thinking of things like speed limits, traffic rules, and
special low-impact tires.)

Speed limits are unenforcable. And besides, animals don't care if they
are killed at 5 MPH or 15 MPH. They are just as dead.

Regarding annoyance, is there some way that mountain bikes could be
made less bothersome to other trail users?

Of course not. They belong in the city. They allow bikers to go too
fast for safety, and to force hikers off the trail.

5. What is your underlying philosophy regarding this issue?

Specifically, why do you feel that this is an important issue? Are
you opposing bicycles on trails based on some simple philosophical
test that could be applied more generally?

Of course. Wildlife have already lost 95% (?) of their habitat, and
can't afford to lose any more. Banning bikes is the only way that
everyone can have equal access to natural areas, since the presence of
bikes on trails drives hikers off the trails and out of the parks.

That is, do you genuinely feel strongly about erosion itself, or do
you have deeper reasons for spending your time on this?

I can't see any reason to allow the destruction of our natural areas.
Mountain bikers CLAIM to love nature, but actively DESTROY it by
mountain biking. That makes no sense. If you don't care about nature,
be a man, and admit it. Don't PRETEND to care.

Thank you in advance for your time in responding to these questions. I
would also invite anyone else to respond in any way that seems
appropriate. More discussion can only bring more light and
understanding to this issue.

I hope you are right, but I haven't seen any rational response from
mountain bikers yet!
===
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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande