Frequently Asked Questions about Mountain Biking

Mike Vandeman wrote:
Frequently Asked Questions about Mountain Biking Michael Vandeman, Ph.D.
March 5, 2004
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 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. 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?).
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. 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….
4. 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. 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: in press.
Wisdom et al. 2).
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/mtb1...ome.pacbell.n-
et/mjvande/mtb10.htm).
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!
===
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/mjvandehttp:...ll.net/mjvande


What does Mike Vandemans posts have to do with cycling? Other than not
cycling.



--

frodge wrote:
Mike Vandeman wrote:
Frequently Asked Questions about Mountain Biking Michael
Vandeman, Ph.D. March 5, 2004

{*SNIP*}

What does Mike Vandemans posts have to do with cycling? Other than not
cycling.

Dude, you just re-posted 15 kb's worth of Vandedrivel, only to add that
little comment? Learn how to trim, FFS!

Bill "frequently seen problems with Usenet posters" S.

On Thu, 20 May 2004 15:38:16 GMT, frodge wrote:

What does Mike Vandemans posts have to do with cycling? Other than not
cycling.

Welcome to Usenet. There are some true nutcases in this world, and Usenet
gives them a place to be nutcases without having to deal with anyone
face-to-face.

We call this particular nutcase a "troll". Rather than the beast who lives
under the bridge (though he may resemble one), I believe this term came
from trolling for fish. He throws out some bait (i.e. a completely
nonsensical or irrelevant argument), and someone is bound to "bite" (argue
with him). Then he gets to play with them a bit more by making more
nonsensical arguments, and if they're enough of a sucker they'll continue
the "argument". If he's really lucky, someone will post an angry
(preferably profane) reply which he will cross-post to other newsgroups to
make the poster look bad.

At some point the fish realizes they're being played, or they toss out
some logic that he can't word-pick and he stops replying to that thread
(and focuses his trolling on another thread). In any case, even if the
respondent has a well-reasoned argument with supporting data, the troll
will later post the same material as if the conversation had never
happened (if nothing else, he can get someone to argue with him about
having already brought it up).

Most busy newsgroups have a troll, particularly if the newsgroup is one
where opinions are often expressed. The thing that distinguishes Vandeman
is that he's a very active and experienced troll. He has been selected as
"Kook of the Month" as well as the "Looney Maroon Award" by
alt.usenet.kooks. That was last decade - and he's still using the same
arguments.

Vandeman hasn't really done much to get trails closed to mountain bikers -
so obviously he's not concerned about whether his so-called "cause"
succeeds - but he certainly has gotten a lot of attention. That seems to
be all he REALLY cares about.

I put him in my killfile, along with the dumb fish who insist on
biting every piece of bait he casts out. I still see the replies from
everyone else, but no big deal.

--
-BB-
To reply to me, drop the attitude (from my e-mail address, at least)

Mikey V blurts:

.I would describe one of the goals of science as developing more and more
.*accurate* models to describe the universe.

Right. They are called "generalizations".

Now, that was spoken like a true Psycho - logist. In "real" science, we try to
get away from generalisations, and onto more accurate descriptions of the
universe.
I guess we should be glad you aren't an astronomer, or you'd come up with some
clever generalisation such as "If there are supernovas out there, then _every_
star is a supernova, THE SKY IS FALLING!!! "

Oh, wait, you do that already, don't you?

Steve "nemmind"

On 20 May 2004 16:30:21 GMT, BB wrote:

..On Thu, 20 May 2004 15:38:16 GMT, frodge wrote:
..
.. What does Mike Vandemans posts have to do with cycling? Other than not
.. cycling.
..
..Welcome to Usenet. There are some true nutcases in this world, and Usenet
..gives them a place to be nutcases without having to deal with anyone
..face-to-face.
..
..We call this particular nutcase a "troll". Rather than the beast who lives
..under the bridge (though he may resemble one), I believe this term came
..from trolling for fish. He throws out some bait (i.e. a completely
..nonsensical or irrelevant argument), and someone is bound to "bite" (argue
..with him). Then he gets to play with them a bit more by making more
..nonsensical arguments, and if they're enough of a sucker they'll continue
..the "argument". If he's really lucky, someone will post an angry
..(preferably profane) reply which he will cross-post to other newsgroups to
..make the poster look bad.
..
..At some point the fish realizes they're being played, or they toss out
..some logic that he can't word-pick and he stops replying to that thread
..(and focuses his trolling on another thread). In any case, even if the
..respondent has a well-reasoned argument with supporting data, the troll
..will later post the same material as if the conversation had never
..happened (if nothing else, he can get someone to argue with him about
..having already brought it up).
..
..Most busy newsgroups have a troll, particularly if the newsgroup is one
..where opinions are often expressed. The thing that distinguishes Vandeman
..is that he's a very active and experienced troll. He has been selected as
.."Kook of the Month" as well as the "Looney Maroon Award" by
..alt.usenet.kooks. That was last decade - and he's still using the same
..arguments.

Because they are TRUE. DUH.

..Vandeman hasn't really done much to get trails closed to mountain bikers -
..so obviously he's not concerned about whether his so-called "cause"
..succeeds - but he certainly has gotten a lot of attention. That seems to
..be all he REALLY cares about.
..
..I put him in my killfile, along with the dumb fish who insist on
..biting every piece of bait he casts out. I still see the replies from
..everyone else, but no big deal.

===
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

Nelson says:

Seen any whipsnakes lately?

Yeah - I squashed two on the way here ;-)

Steve "knew there was one of yez around..."

Preface: Having read many of Mr. Vandemans posts I think I can say with a degree of confidence that his posts are rhetorical in nature and not really intent on generating dialog. I also realize he's not likely interested in the opposing position. I further realize that I'm likely wasting key strokes at the present. With that said I have a few comments.

Regarding the 'why'?
Mr. Vandeman failed to mention the two main reasons why people
mountainbike and why the sport is catching on, namely fun and
great exercise?

Mountain biking for many is an extremely enjoyable activity in which to
partake. That Mr. Vandeman does not understand why it is such fun is
irrelevant. I need not understand why people enjoy riding horses, but
that does not mean that I do not understand that people do enjoy riding
horses. My ignorance of their proclivities does not justify my
demonization of their lifestyle.

Further, mountainbiking is excellent exercise for both hand/foot & eye
coordination and ones cardiovascular system. It is also less impacting
on ones knees, hips, and feet than running. To provide example, if
anecdotal, I cannot jog as my knee will ache if I do so more than once
per week. I can however ride my bicycle (road or mountain) several times
per week without experiencing any physical malady.

Also one must consider that some people cannot be motivated to jog or
run or even hike, being that personal tastes are widely varied in
pursuits of exercise.

Regarding the destruction... Sure, mountainbiking is more destructive
than walking, but is less destructive than horseback riding. Having
said that, if you are loath to accept mountainbiking due to its adverse
effect on nature, why would you accept hiking as an alternative as
hiking creates trails and destroys vegetation thus harming habitat?

Truly if conservation is your priority then only the most acceptable
policy would have to be avoidance of nature entirely.

If you do not advocate utter human exclusion for nature then it all
becomes various shades of gray as far as what is considered acceptable
or sustainable conservation. Mr. Vandeman is in the extreme minority in
his preview of what is acceptable, and as his letter suggest the
majority opinion generally drives legislation, which is why
mountainbiking is a sustained activity with a variety of locations in
which to enjoy our sport.

Closing commentary...

Ms. Vandeman clearly has much time to post rhetorical diatribes on the
injustices of mountainbiking to the internet all day. He clearly has
the will to at least present an argument to support his position.
What perplexes me is that with his purported education and self
professed intelligence, why does he not see that a position of 'zero
tolerance' is doomed to failure. He would probably do much more for
the environment it he, rather than crusading to end the sport of
mountainbiking, attempted to instruct us on environmental friendly
policies to employ when mountain biking.

He may also want to reconsider how he conveys his message. Except for
those who are attending a church service, very few people are willing to
consider a message when it is preached to them. Self righteousness never
sold anything.



--

Joz says:

I further realize that I'm likely wasting key strokes at the present.

Yes.

But we all indulge at some time or another. Just try to keep it short, and use
small words so he can understand what you write.

Steve

But we all indulge at some time or another. Just try to keep it short,
and use
small words so he can understand what you write.


Are four-letter words about the right size?

cc says:

Are four-letter words about the right size?


Yes, technically - but he'll only accuse you of abusive behaviour, and your
email/post will be posted on more groups and forums and private emails to
others than you want to know about.
It's more fun to stay polite and let him be the ill-mannered lout.

Steve