General Cycling Discussion - Bikers bad for the environment - seriously

Did you see the October 2002 issue of Bicycling Magazine that shows the mountain biker grinding up the delicate face of an ancient and rare rock formation? I attached it for your reference.

This kind of thing really saddens me.

I know that today's Bicycling rags have gone the route of ski magazines - everything has to be extreme. All photos have to show big air or guys jumping off cliffs or doing some other over-the-top risky technique.

However, when I see pics of bikers obviously doing serious damage to the environment, it is really irritating. What you can't see from this rough scan is the spin-out of dirt and rock under this bike-boob's rear tire chewing away at a formation that has instilled wonderment since man stepped foot in Europe.

Of course, every time anyone or anything takes a step or bikes, there is impact on the land, but I think that we, as stewards of the environment are obligated to be selective with our impact so as to do the least damage possible.

:rolleyes:
Well what does one say to this. It has always been my opinion that asphalt roadways to whatever extent, office parks, strip malls etc. do more damage than my bikes tires. Also the herd of cattle that we have here does far more damage than my bikes tires. For that matter so do the deer.
There are hundreds mre examples that can be given, but come on, is anyone going to stop development, or convince the wildlife to stop moving around, or only do it in designated area's?
How about jet engine aircraft, or cruise ships, or multi passenger busses? Why not pick on things that are actually damaging?

I have to agree with Hunter. We can't shrink wrap the earth.

Originally posted by JDP
I have to agree with Hunter. We can't shrink wrap the earth.
I think there are a couple of points that you and hunter maybe missing.
1 Pick your place to play. Some places are more fragle than others at the same time being extremely pretty. It seems we could if not try to preserve them at least not tear them apart.
2 We could slow to almost stop growth and that would be good for all of us. We might have less money, but more pleasure.

Joe
:beer:

I doubt very much you would see a bear up there tearing the dirt up. I think the photo is a very unfortunate example of Mtn Biking Extremism. It is a pity too because someone will use that picture to pursue closing wildernesses and trails to mtn bikers. The key to preservation of rights to the wilderness is responsible riding. I mean if I wanted to keep riding my bike I would likely not pick linclolns lap in the Lincoln Memorial to do my "Extreme" riding. I would likely be able to find a place whch had less impact. Granted erosion will eventually take the hoodoo in that picture out in a thousand years or so. However, if a mountain biker (of which I am one) or a hiker or a horseback rider speeds the process up a year or two multiplied by all the recreational users who do that, then noone can enjoy it anymore. Just for the record, a hiker would probably do pretty much the same damage as the biker is doing, but I'm afraid the biker will get the worse press for this picture. I don't advocate shrink wrapping everything, but I do think there are spots which should be preserved which might be delicate or sensitive to use.

Did you see the October 2002 issue of Bicycling Magazine that shows the mountain biker grinding up the delicate face of an ancient and rare rock formation?
Do you have information about this area? What leads you to believe it is ancient and rare? Quite a bit of the extreme riding you see in the Kranked videos, and what not, are done in man made areas like huge gravel pits. Personally, I think Bicycling magazine is a cheese rag anyway - a good form of protest would be not to buy it.

Originally posted by Rotifer

Do you have information about this area? What leads you to believe it is ancient and rare? Quite a bit of the extreme riding you see in the Kranked videos, and what not, are done in man made areas like huge gravel pits. Personally, I think Bicycling magazine is a cheese rag anyway - a good form of protest would be not to buy it.

I'm no geologist - but that pillar doesn't look man-made to me.

I think we do owe a duty of care to areas of beauty and wilderness . Quarries are great places for extreme riding - elsewhere we need to preserve for the future - I'm not saying don't ride elsewhere, but do ride responsibly.


Richard.

I was a bit unclear, I wasn't implying that it was man made. Rather, I like information. Along with the picture let's have a link about the structure this guy is riding on or the park he's in. What are the laws concerning such things like in Europe? They are quite strict here, though difficult to enforce.

I would likely not pick linclolns lap in the Lincoln Memorial to do my "Extreme" riding

I would. Its A) Manmade B) Professionally Maintained and C) Simply a statue. To paraphrase the immortal words of Zaphod Bebblebrox, he was "Just this guy, yanno?"

Gimmie a break, manking despite its overinflated opinion of itself is a blink in the span of eons the universe consists of.

Originally posted by mike
Did you see the October 2002 issue of Bicycling Magazine that shows the mountain biker grinding up the delicate face of an ancient and rare rock formation? I attached it for your reference.

This kind of thing really saddens me.

However, when I see pics of bikers obviously doing serious damage to the environment, it is really irritating. What you can't see from this rough scan is the spin-out of dirt and rock under this bike-boob's rear tire chewing away at a formation that has instilled wonderment since man stepped foot in Europe.

I agree Mike... I've been out on the trails in the past and see this type of mis-use first hand, both MTB and Motocross. I live in So Ca...and I am saddened because many open spaces are abused without regard. Various non-riding groups are pushing to close open grounds for fear of this type of distruction. It's always just a few that ruin it for everyone else. I, for one am the first one to get in somebodies face...when I see someone abusing their freedoms with their tread. I would hope that others that feel like I, would do the same. Otherwise, the few that help to distroy without regard will be the few that help to limit all our rights.

delicate face of an ancient and rare rock formation

It is beautiful because it is natural and rare. You could say that, by him making it more rare, he could be making it more beautiful.

But, why not appreciate what is abundant as much as what is rare?

I'm still trying to figure out where all those perfectly acceptable 7
and 8speed bikes went the ones we could still be riding.........

What the picture doesn't show is that the guy rolled 400 miles out of town in his SUV while guzzling 2 cases of rolling rock bottles.........

That was after he cashed his check at the bank drive-up lane and stopped off at another drive-up for fast food on the way out of town.

"It's all up to what you value" - George Harrison

When I saw the picture in the magazine I remarked, "Wherever that is, that picture isn't likely to do cycling any good."

I want to know if the photographer asked the rider to do that a few times, just so he could get the best shot for the article.


?

There is a "step lightly" motto out there. Like don't leave trash or camp fire sites laying around in the forest. Sure they're not hurting anything, but it's the principle. I believe the Boy Scouts follow this belief. And the last time I heard they were good conservative Christians, in theory. Of course I have know many who were very liberal, but my point is that it isn't just environmentalists and liberals who believe in being gentle with nature. Cause you can't put it back.

Clay

In the UK we have a few "honeypot" routes for hikers, which suffer extreme erosion from the sheer number of people walking.
We are pretty restricted as to where we can legally ride bikes off-road. Any rock-formation like that would be off limits, unless a bridle path ran across it.
In the US there are a few places like Moab which attract thousands of bikers, but there are also vast areas of public land which are not national parks, and get very few visitors. They are just as pretty as the parks, but access is more difficult.

Originally posted by Richard Cranium

What the picture doesn't show is that the guy rolled 400 miles out of town in his SUV while guzzling 2 cases of rolling rock bottles.........

That was after he cashed his check at the bank drive-up lane and stopped off at another drive-up for fast food on the way out of town.

This is stupid! What does it mean? Try drinking two cases of beer during a 400mi trip, dumbass. I guarantee you wont make it to your destination. You assume EVERYTHING you said in this quip. Jesus...all the guy is doing is riding a bike. If that landform is so sacred I'm sure the local authorites will be all over that guy as soon as they catch wind of this travesty. Get off it--He's not dumping toxic waste in the river or tagging Stonehenge.

Originally posted by stumpjumper

Gimmie a break, manking despite its overinflated opinion of itself is a blink in the span of eons the universe consists of.

True that.


d

"a good runner leaves no tracks" lao-tzu

There is a "step lightly" motto out there. Like don't leave trash or camp fire sites laying around in the forest.


Oh, definitely. I like to pick up a few of the more egregious bits of trash I find on trails. just slip it into my Blowfish. it might be a token effort, but I believe in leaving a place like that better than I found it.

where did I get this? I suppose it was the Scouts. although I was only in it for the camping, and I only got to the second rank out of I don't even remember how many -- after two years. h*ll of an organisation, though. (mamet reference, eh.)

had this t-shirt once, with a block-cut of a leopard or somesuch and the caption, "Tread Lightly On The Earth." loved that one.

--alex.

Originally posted by Rotifer

Do you have information about this area? What leads you to believe it is ancient and rare? Quite a bit of the extreme riding you see in the Kranked videos, and what not, are done in man made areas like huge gravel pits. Personally, I think Bicycling magazine is a cheese rag anyway - a good form of protest would be not to buy it.

Bicycle Magazine describes the area on page 21 of the October 2002 issue as:

"Circue de Moureze; Roussillon, France. Cycling through this natural limestone formation is like riding on the moon - but more surreal. The landscape is filled with precarious drop-offs, castles and rock formations with names such as The Sphinx, The Death's Head and The Young Ladies... WATCH FOR: Evolution among the rocks. The oldest known European human skull was found here."

hmmm, do off road cars do any damage? How about tanks, bombs, airplane accidents and acid rain? You think a glacier from an ice age ever knocked over an 'ancient and rare rock formation'? Or a meteorite? A tornado? I don't think the biker adds his fair share of destruction but that's just MHO.

What you didn't see is the next MTBiker come flying down the hill and crashing directly into the 'ancient and rare rock formation' and knocking it over.:D

As a member of the “off-road” cycling community I personally believe “we” would greatly benefit from an image of being at the forefront of environmental stewardship. The awesome splendor; majesty and grandeur of pristine wilderness preserved in our national park system is a compelling magnet that entices; and lures primal urges from within. It has been this way for generations. Those who quibble about the degree or magnitude of impact may have lost the spirit and intent of what is at issue.

I personally ask each and every one of my fellow cyclist to Please endeavor to set a sterling example of a keen awareness for the values other park users hold dear (a.k.a. hikers and all other “naturalist”). Should cyclist collectively ignore their stewardship responsibilities, I truly fear the voices of outrage will rise up with the thundering wail of a multitude of banshees. This is a undeniable given against any and all who would threaten the legacy of the priceless natural wonders with our park systems which truly belong to absolutely no one other than our children’s; children’s children.

Wide tires will not do much damage to a rock surface. He just have to be careful to not knock down columns there.

I hear the rock climbers do some damage while knocking the steel hooks into a rock. But they also change the technique to save environment.

Is it known how this cyclist got to this area? Was he cycling there from home or driving a car? If he drives there with bike on car-rack, he may find next time a fuelling station at the spot.

Originally posted by Alexey


Is it known how this cyclist got to this area? Was he cycling there from home or driving a car? If he drives there with bike on car-rack, he may find next time a fuelling station at the spot.

Good one, Alexey!:thumbup: :roflmao:

Originally posted by mike
Did you see the October 2002 issue of Bicycling Magazine that shows the mountain biker grinding up the delicate face of an ancient and rare rock formation? I attached it for your reference.

This kind of thing really saddens me.

I know that today's Bicycling rags have gone the route of ski magazines - everything has to be extreme. All photos have to show big air or guys jumping off cliffs or doing some other over-the-top risky technique.

However, when I see pics of bikers obviously doing serious damage to the environment, it is really irritating. What you can't see from this rough scan is the spin-out of dirt and rock under this bike-boob's rear tire chewing away at a formation that has instilled wonderment since man stepped foot in Europe.

Of course, every time anyone or anything takes a step or bikes, there is impact on the land, but I think that we, as stewards of the environment are obligated to be selective with our impact so as to do the least damage possible.

Mike you a funny guy,

I guess i am not going to repave my driveway after all, i mean i don't want to hurt the ground.:rolleyes:

I somehow imagine men ages hence marveling at our ancient and rare tread designs...

Have to go with the environmentalists on this one. Just because you can do a thing doesn't mean you should.

Keep to the roads, the paths, the trails. Mother Nature dresses herself just fine, She doesn't need to wear tire-marks.

-Rob

Next time there are some trails you want to ride and see a sign saying no bicycles remember this guy. Many of the national parks don't allow bicycles mainly because of idiots like this that think the rules are for everyone but him.

Sure roads, buildings and growth tear up more land, but that doesn't mean we have to go out and tear up the rest of it. Especially parks and such these are the only thing left that is somewhat natural.

Actually, one can make an excellent case that mountain biking is good for the environment. By the way, I am a road cyclist so I am out there busily destroying our pristine asphalt roads.

One of the biggest environmental problems is habitat destruction. Ironically, one of the most effective protectors of habitat are hunters and fishermen. These people want to go out and kill animals so they lobby for the protection of natural habitat. Sure they kill some critters, but they in the process get a fair amount of land preserved.

Here locally, quite a few mountain bike trails have been put up. The trails get a fair bit of use. All those mountain bikers love THEIR park and will lobby to have it protected and also lobby for MORE TRAILS. More trails means more protected habitat. And more protected habitat means more places for endangered species most of which don't really care or worry about the mountain bikers buzzing along on the trails.

Mike seems to argue for the untouched pristine wilderness ideal. Personally, long term, I think the more people who have a vested interest in protecting natural habitats the better.

Now irresponsible mountain biking can have some adverse side effects. But by in large anything that is human powered is relatively benign compared to motorized. Cross country skiing has a sleight impact compared to snowmobiles. Mountain bikes have little impact compared to SUVs. Canoes have little impact compared to jet skiis and motor boats. Backpackers have little impact compared to motor homes. And I think the lobbying for the protection of the environment by outdoorspersons greatly outweighs any adverse impact.

Originally posted by Pat


Mike seems to argue for the untouched pristine wilderness ideal. Personally, long term, I think the more people who have a vested interest in protecting natural habitats the better.


Actually, Pat, that is not what I am saying or implying. I agree that public land is most likely to stay public and wild as long as it is used. As you point out, hunters, mountain bicylists, hikers, campers, and others lobby and write to lawmakers which helps perserve public land and public land use.

This still does not justify wreckless and irresponsible use of public land. Imagine if hunters killed every beast and fish in some area without replentishing the game (as people did in the 1800's). The land would have little value to hunters and interest is lost. The same holds true for bicycle trails. If the trails cause errosion that ruins the trail or causes landslides, the land becomes useless for mountain biking and may become a sub-division.

The philosophy of "it is there to be used, so I have the right to ruin it" or "It won't last forever anyway, so we might as well burn it up now", is fatalistic and threatens many of the parks and public access areas we enjoy today.

Originally posted by Pat
But by in large anything that is human powered is relatively benign compared to motorized.

You can not be more right. I agree completely.

it is possible to take conservation to an extreme, don'cha think? consider for a moment the fact that a large number of frames and components are built in the third world, thanks to what some americans might regard as semi-slave labor and sub-standard working conditions (not to mention child labor). so regardless of where YOU might draw the line, there is a better than equal chance someone else will disagree.

i personally try to use common sense regarding where and when i ride off road, and i go out of my way to be courteous to hikers, because 1) it's civil and 2) there are more of them and they have the power to shut the door to the trail on me.

having said that, it's a judgement call, and i'm not so quick to condemn another's judgements. it's all subjective.

the rock formation that precipitated this debate does not look to me to be particularly fragile, unless a squid clydesdale loses control and augers into it, perhaps chipping it with his/her cro-magnum skull. this sounds a bit like a stunt i might pull.

Pat,

All in all most mountain bikers, hikers, skiers, etc etc take good care of their resources. Just like the rest of life it is the few jerks that think the rules are for everyone but them that ruin it for all of us.

I spend a lot of time in outdoor activities and generally people that enjoy the outdoors are friendly and preserve it's natural beauty. But there are a few that should not be allowed to leave their house's. :crash:

I totally agree with gabiker's post above. Most "natural" land users are much more sensitive to environmental concerns.
What about REAL problems like urban sprawl, pollution and overgrazing of land? Mountain bike tire ruts and hiker footprints are NOTHING compared to flattening a million acres, paving it over and calling it a new neighborhood.

The problem is the public land has become smaller and smaller so there are many more mulit-use trails. Concentrate on the steak and not the peas. Use your energy getting mad at the real issues. The cycling community is too small for segregation and infighting. We need solidarity in the face of ignorant "environmentalists" willing to cut our rights and disparage cycling in the name of environmental purity. They get pummeled by big business so they go after us to claim any hollow victory.

Originally posted by RacerX
I totally agree with gabiker's post above. Most "natural" land users are much more sensitive to environmental concerns.
What about REAL problems like urban sprawl, pollution and overgrazing of land? Mountain bike tire ruts and hiker footprints are NOTHING compared to flattening a million acres, paving it over and calling it a new neighborhood.

The problem is the public land has become smaller and smaller so there are many more mulit-use trails. Concentrate on the steak and not the peas. Use your energy getting mad at the real issues. The cycling community is too small for segregation and infighting. We need solidarity in the face of ignorant "environmentalists" willing to cut our rights and disparage cycling in the name of environmental purity. They get pummeled by big business so they go after us to claim any hollow victory.

I agree with you and a few others, it's a few that creat the problems for many. However, the reality is, those liberal tree huggers will shut the open lands down if those of us that enjoy the open land don't do something to stop idiots like the one in the pic. Speak up for your freedoms... Otherwise the idiots won't give a dam.

it's a pity you feel it necessary to resort to name calling. this was an interesting debate before that.

extremist tree huggers and others of their ilk will take offense at virtually anything one can do or say, so i have learned not to worry overmuch about their opinions. no doubt they feel the mountain upon which those two rocks sit should be quarantined, and that those who gaze at them through binoculars should be jailed for reflecting excess light upon them.

Bicycle Magazine describes the area on page 21 of the October 2002 issue as:
Thanks Mike.
The beautiful thing about the internet is that one can actually formulate an opinion and offer proof to back it up. If you don't, you tend to look like an ignorant blowhard.

i pretty much agree with a bunch of comments here from pat, racerx, gabiker and others...

i think the damage that mountain bikers do to trails is very small and is definitely virtually nothing compared to the real damage: SPRAWL, PAVING ROADS, BUILDING PARKING LOTS, building GOLF COURSES, HOTELS, OFFICE PARKS, etc. as well as LOGGING and MINERAL RESOURCE EXTRACTION (although these have an economic need, but SHOULD be done in more sustainable ways than clearcutting and strip mining)

and then also as someone else said, non-motorized recreation like mountain biking, hiking, cross-country skiing, sailing, canoeing all do much less environmental (and NOISE) pollution and disrupt wildlife much less than similar motorized sports like (motorcross, 4-wheelers, snowmobiles, jet-skis)... i personally think that while they should not be made illegal, the use of these should be more heavily restricted b/c of their impact (like the Snowmobile ban in many national parks and forests like Yellowstone that Bush has rescended)

on the other hand, as there are more and more riders, i try to protect trails and minimize my impact when biking and promote conservation
* not locking up and skidding brakes, particularly the back brake
* not widening the trail by NOT riding around obstacles or mud puddles (unless not possible)
* not making shortcuts or new switchbacks
* respecting erosion barriers and other trail protections

also, b/c most mountain bikers tend to stick to trails their impact on wildlife has been found to be somewhat similar to that of hikers who tend to travel less distance but go off trail slightly more often... but b/c of reduced noise, mountain bikes disturb wildlife much less than autos or motorized off-road vehicles like motorbikes...

lastly, the image that we present to others does have some importance, mainly to prevent the risk of trail closure. 10 years ago this was a huge issue, but b/c of mountain bike advocacy (like IMBA) this has really improved.

as a good rule for off-road riding (and many other things too)... just imagine that everyone else does what you're doing and think how it will affect your opportunities in the future...

Originally posted by Rotifer
Personally, I think Bicycling magazine is a cheese rag anyway. [/B]

Ditto on the cheese. :D :D :D

I choose to not get too caught up in stuff like this. Everything in moderation. Join the IMBA, do some trail maintenance if you can, and ride like you respect what you have.

:cool:

Originally posted by Bandit
it's a pity you feel it necessary to resort to name calling. this was an interesting debate before that.

I am sorry if my words offend some. But, I've been pro-active in many organizations over the years seeking to keep the open range "open" for us to use respectfully while enjoying various sports. Debates like these are nice. But, being pro-active and knowing the reality is more important. My experience has taught me that the ones who care physically for the trees, mountains, trails and wild animals are sports activists and outdoorsman.

As an outdoorsman and athlete, my biggest opponent has been a walker, bird watcher and the most common rival, the liberal "city dwellers" that only look at the trees and mtns from a far or in pictures. They think it's their lot in life to save outdoors from us, the real physical caretakers, fundraisers and users.

It's only an ugly few that could careless about what happens and feel it's their right to abuse and walk away without regards for the results. This ugly few stands out!

It's those that are politically active while setting in their chairs pushing for various bills to keep you and I from the world we enjoy and care for. We can't ignore these people any longer. And, I am sorry to say, those people almost always are way to liberal from my view point and end up hugging the trees for the wrong reasons.

PS... This is NOT a place to debate, because if so, then the following rules should be in play.

1)There is a word limit for each debate. This will be set by the chairman or moderater, sometime prior to the debate and must not be excessive. You must make a formal announcement of Proposition and Opposition to topic.

2)There will be 2 'speeches' each from the debaters. One initial speech each and then one consolidation speech each. At the discretion of the chairman, an extra closing/reply speech may be made.

3)Speeches must be polite in nature and must not insult or offend.

4)No images of any kind allowed that aid the debater in any way.

5)Points of information are allowed but must be short in length. Whether or not the point is long, is completely up to the chairman.

6)Disqualification is at the moderators discretion.

Just to name a few rules...
This is a place to express our opinions.

Originally posted by mike


Actually, Pat, that is not what I am saying or implying. I agree that public land is most likely to stay public and wild as long as it is used. As you point out, hunters, mountain bicylists, hikers, campers, and others lobby and write to lawmakers which helps perserve public land and public land use.

This still does not justify wreckless and irresponsible use of public land. Imagine if hunters killed every beast and fish in some area without replentishing the game (as people did in the 1800's). The land would have little value to hunters and interest is lost. The same holds true for bicycle trails. If the trails cause errosion that ruins the trail or causes landslides, the land becomes useless for mountain biking and may become a sub-division.

The philosophy of "it is there to be used, so I have the right to ruin it" or "It won't last forever anyway, so we might as well burn it up now", is fatalistic and threatens many of the parks and public access areas we enjoy today.

That is a strawman argument. Hunters and fisherman have advocate responsible hunting and fishing. There are organisations like Trout Unlimited that advocates the killing of no fish in fishing.

In mountain biking, you will have some outlaw element. But you will also have a responsible element. Over time, the responsible element should prevail as it did in sport hunting and sport fishing. The responsible element will obviously see habitat preservation as a major goal because their sport can not long exist without it. So I maintain that in the long term, mountain biking will have positive effects on the environment.

If you keep everyone out, then no one will have any interest in protecting the environment and it will not be protected. The outdoors recreational industry - fishing, hunting, hiking, birding, mushroom gathering, and now bicycling expose thousands of people to the environment and these interest groups have been historically pro preservation.

Originally posted by Pat


That is a strawman argument. Hunters and fisherman have advocate responsible hunting and fishing. There are organisations like Trout Unlimited that advocates the killing of no fish in fishing.

In mountain biking, you will have some outlaw element. But you will also have a responsible element. Over time, the responsible element should prevail as it did in sport hunting and sport fishing. The responsible element will obviously see habitat preservation as a major goal because their sport can not long exist without it. So I maintain that in the long term, mountain biking will have positive effects on the environment.

If you keep everyone out, then no one will have any interest in protecting the environment and it will not be protected. The outdoors recreational industry - fishing, hunting, hiking, birding, mushroom gathering, and now bicycling expose thousands of people to the environment and these interest groups have been historically pro preservation.

Well said Pat...