::home::

::autobiography::

::issues::

::links::

::contact::

ITESM - CQ

Introduction.

The main idea behind mountain biking is, of course, not biking in urban areas, but rather off road. However, the fact that it’s many times practiced in national parks and ecological preserves has caused great controversy in the United States, and now recently also in Mexico. Mountain biking is a relatively new sport and has quickly gained many followers in various parts of the world, but mostly in Europe and North America. These bikers have been claiming that off road pedaling is an ecologically conscious sport, a claim that had been fully supported until a few years ago. Since the early 1990’s, mountain bikers have won the disliking of numerous environmentalists, who now refer to off road cyclists as “wheeled locust”.

On one hand environmentalists firmly believe that off road trekking  (1) causes ecological destruction and imbalance, (2) fends off other park visitors, and (3) promotes the creation of illegal trails. Meanwhile, on the other, mountain bikers argue that off road cycling (1) causes no damage with proper trail maintenance, (2) is not harmful when done “softly, and (3) is in their right to appreciate and enjoy nature.

In this essay I intend to deeply explore each and every argument posed by both groups and provide the reader with examples. I shall also provide World Wide Web links to sites that support each argument so that he may furthermore formulate his own opinion. Finally, I shall expose my personal thoughts and conclusions on the topic. I urge the reader to not jump to any conclusions before reading the essay in its entirety.

Arguments Againts Bike Trails

The first argument used against the creation and use of bike trails is that they cause ecological destruction and imbalance. Bike trails harden the soil underneath and slowly erode the paths until rocks and roots surface. This also causes water to funnel into the trails and create muddy areas. Once this happens bikers start to ride around the obstacles making the trails even wider, riding over small plants such as wildflowers and delicate moss. Many parks in the US claim to have already suffered greatly by this type of erosion. For example, the Middlesex Fells park in the United States claims that their once “narrow hiking trails have been reduced to wide roads of rock and rubble, exposed tree roots are everywhere, and washed out trail sections are a common sight”

The second argument used to fight the creation and use of bike trails is that bikers fend off other park visitors such as hikers or equestrians, and can even monopolize the use of trails. They believe that most mountain bikers are in need of an adrenaline rush and therefore ride inconsiderately fast and with no care for others, in many occasions injuring visitors. They refer to these riders as “ “banzai" or "kamikaze" riders who race along the trails spooking animals and humans, made oblivious to the beauty by the thrill of speed, and who get what they so richly deserve when they slam into trees or do head-plants into rocks”.

The last argument used against off road cycling says that these bike trails only promote the appearance of illegal trails, known as “illegal riding”. Many riders get bored of the established trails and start making their own, or use trails made for other purposes without any regulations or permits. These trails don’t usually last very long because they have no maintenance and are washed out by erosion, however, they are very detrimental to the parks’ appearance. Since these trails are made deep in the forested areas, park rangers have difficulty finding and fixing them. “Trails off limits to bikes are being overused by illegal riders, and this is where erosion problems are occurring”.

Arguments In Favor Of Bike Trails

         The first argument off road cyclists use to counterattack those who oppose bike trails because of their environmental impact is that these trails are not harmful when properly designed and maintained. This argument also claims that water is the main cause for trail erosion and even if the bikers were to never use the trails, they would still require maintenance. Well designed trails are easy to maintain by a process that involves building small barriers to minimize degradation by rainwater. Members of the New England Bike Association have even come to believe that “…trails have an impact on the environment, but we tend to think that all impacts are bad. This isn't true: an impact can be good or bad, and a properly designed [and maintained] trail can be a good impact.”

         The next argument used to defend bike trail creation and use is that when done “softly”, off road cycling has no effects on other park visitors, or on the natural ecosystem . “Soft” riding basically means riding with respect for everything around you. It is an ethical issue that requires that the rider slows down or stops when others are near him, does not ride over dense vegetation, picks up his bike when crossing muddy areas, and any other action that minimizes evidence of his presence. Soft cycling is also defined as : ”…responsibility. Under its rules, we are totally accountable for our actions… What trash we find, we pick up. If a wind has blown deadfall across a trail, we clear what we can. Always, we have in mind that we're only visitors in the backcountry and so treat it accordingly. We respect our fellow visitors and their dreams, too, and treat each other with honor.”

         As a last argument, bikers state that it off road cycling is in their own right to appreciate nature. Although many envirnomentalist think otherwise, cyclist are mostly in this sport for the nature. They do care about it and it would be unlawful to prohibit their admission to natural areas. If thay didn´t care for nature thay would just set up a wind trainer in the basment and forget about leaving their home. "Are hundreds of hikers pacing in their basments, sweat dripping from their brow from the weight of carrying a 40 lb. pack?" The point here is that you would never think of leaving hikers out of natural areas, so why ban off road cycling?

Conclusion

         As you can see, there are several points against and several in favor. I shall now prove every point against off road cycling wrong. Some say that bike riders have no consideration for other park visitors, but in reality this only represents a very small fraction of riders. However, people only seem to remember the bad encounter with a cyclist and never the friendly one. I will agree that cyclists should be more careful when riding, but to ban this sport would be more detrimental than positive. It is also argued that mountain biking causes irreparable damage and erosion to park trails but trail repair and maintenance programs are already in action and are likely to grow within the cycling community. As for “illegal riding” it is obvious that in any social group, like cyclists, there will be those who don’t follow the rules. This doesn’t mean you abolish the entire group; it means you establish reprimands for those few that don’t do what’s right. For example, just because some skaters use handrails or sidewalks for skating, you’re not going to ban the whole sport, it would just mean you fine those doing whatever is illegal.

         My conclusion is that there are ways to overcome the so-called problems off road cycling causes without prohibiting it. Off road cycling is not of evil nature and rather than being banned, it should be promoted. We can find a downside to any sport if we try hard enough and that does not mean we should ban every sport. Environmentalists only focus on what they see as negative consequences of off road cycling and pay no attention to the benefits.