Advocacy & Safety - Study on Mountain Biking impact
Bikeforums.net is a forum about nothing but bikes. Our community can help you find information about hard-to-find and localized information like bicycle tours, specialties like where in your area to have your recumbent bike serviced, or what are the best bicycle tires and seats for the activities you use your bike for.
05-12-01, 07:40 PM
Here is a link to a study done which shows that the impact of Mountain Biking on trails is equal to hiking. In other words, there is no significant difference.
I'm not anti-hiking, in fact, I hike myself but I can't stand it when people tell me that mountain bikes should stay out of the woods because of the damage they cause.:irritated: Well here is a study which shows that the impact caused my Mountain bikes is the same as hiking.
Okay, I'm done ranting... :D
05-12-01, 09:03 PM
If hiking is done in an uneducated manner, i.e., avoiding the well travelled areas and preferring overgrown, therefore less muddy areas, hiking can be even more deleterious than cycling, if cyclists stay on the trail.
To my mind, it's like hikers are saying, "We want to use the trails with an acceptable level of destructive activity.
But we draw the line at cyclists doing the same thing."
And why should hikers rant at responsible cyclists, when roads built for cars destroy far more land every day? A full 1.74% of all land area in the USA is paved.
You make a good point Pete. However the tree huggers and greenies forget that alot of animals make trails too. The impact studies are completely without merit. No to mention all the other "studies" that THEY make, such as extention of.... I mean come on like who really counts all that stuff?
05-13-01, 09:44 AM
Heck, I am greenie and a mountain biker. I figure as long as I am leaving the trail as good or better than I found it, there is not a problem. By the way, I learned that in Boy Scouts.
At the local MTB trail, the area MTB club spends a lot of time restoring and maintaining the trail. There are also preventative measures in place, such as, closing the trail when it is muddy.
05-17-01, 01:01 PM
Originally posted by Pete Clark
A full 10% of all land area in the USA is paved.
That's quite an impressive number. References please.
65% of all reported statistics are made on the fly....
05-17-01, 01:29 PM
Originally posted by dirtsqueezer
That's quite and impressive number. References please.
65% of all reported statistics are made on the fly....
Well, how-de-do! We have the statistics police here...
And I'm BUSTED!
Out of 915,896,000 hectares total US land space,
15, 919,615 is devoted to roads and parking lots, or 1.74 percent (less than 1/5 of my original number!) While this does not represent total paved land area in the US, it is still impressive.
Compare that 16 million hectacres to the 21 million hectacres that the US planted in wheat last year. About 75% as large a space.
However, I think I read that "10%" number somewhere,
but got it confused. It is estimated that only 20% of the total US land area is fertile enough for crop production.
So by comparison, the total US land area paved for roads and parking lots is equal to 8.7% of the total US land area fertile enough for crop production. This figure does not include other paved or developed areas apart from roads and parking lots.
Thanks for the redirect!
05-17-01, 02:11 PM
Please, I prefer the term Statistical Enforcement Nag (SEN). :)
That number just screamed out as being way too big. I am concerned about the expansion of roads and the effect on society. To that end, I want to make sure that my fellow advocates provide solid numbers. I'd rather have a friend point out a mistake early than have my lunch fed to me by a political rival at a later date.
Vee are Vatching....
05-17-01, 02:17 PM
Also, as my community is working hard to protect our declining open space from development, please point me to the resources you are referencing. I tried looking it up, but didn't find it that easily.
05-17-01, 08:06 PM
page down to documents, 010214.html and
When searching, use 2 or 3 keywords, searching on individual webpages.
I've always been curious about studies on equestrian traffic on trails. Is anyone aware of studies of bike damage vs. horse damage? For years there has been an ongoing "war" where equestrian's in many places have tried to get bikers banned - not necessarily because of trail damage. Interesting that hikers don't seem to target eaquestrians, as large amounts of trail damage is done by horses in my area - it's quite easy to spot the crater holes produced by horse hooves. That said, most of the equestrians I encounter are friendly, which I hope is in part due to me always exchanging greetings and offering to let them pass as I dismount my bike. One final thought though - in 10 years of mountain biking, I have yet to see a group of equestrians (or hikers for that matter) performing trail maintenance. That's not to say none of them have, but I haven't seen it.
05-21-01, 05:20 PM
I must be pretty fortunate, I see a lot of groups from birders, xc-skiers, cyclists, horse riders and motor bikers get involved with trail work. Hope it continues.
05-21-01, 05:28 PM
Originally posted by riderx
Interesting that hikers don't seem to target eaquestrians, as large amounts of trail damage is done by horses in my area - it's quite easy to spot the crater holes produced by horse hooves. That said, most of the equestrians I encounter are friendly, which I hope is in part due to me always exchanging greetings and offering to let them pass as I dismount my bike.
Rider...you're right. Hikers always seem to target cyclist but not equestrians. It's amazing how much the horses tear up the trails. I've been on trails which were nearly unrideable because of all the craters created by the horses.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.12 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.