fred@varian.UUCP (Fred Klink) (09/27/84)
I don't claim that my objection to mountain bikes on trails has any rational basis. Its simply a gut reaction based on what experience I expect on a "wilderness" trail. I have always and hope I will always have a reasonable expectation that others on trails are moving at a speed similar to mine and that unexpected noises are from the wildlife, not wild riders. As stated previously, this is the same reaction I have to other types of mechanical conveyances in these same situations. Its also not based on any assumption that otherwise rational people with operate bicycles irrationally on a mountain trail. Rather, its a question of the appropriateness of the bicycle for the situation. The incident I related last time had another component: there was a distinct "burned rubber" smell along the steep part of the trail after the cyclists passed. I assume this was from the brakes and I therefore am concerned that brake fade will create unsafe kamakazee riders regardless of their actual intent. Trails are not graded like roads and 15-20% or more grades are common with all the usual ruts and bumps of a trail. Combine this with a narrow path and short visibility ahead and you have an inappropriate place for any wheeled vehicle, especially when pedestrians are present. I guess I have a few rational arguments after all! I don't believe the issues of erosion or disturbance to animals will ever be shown to be serious enough in them- selves to be the basis for mountain bike regulations. Rather, I think preserving the quality of the wilderness experience for the majority of (foot-powered) users is the main concern. On this basis I think a rational choice of whether to permit bikes on not can be made on an area by area basis similar to what's been done with off-road vehicles of other types.
rcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn) (10/02/84)
On two issues people have raised:
Mountain bikes traveling too fast--if someone were going so fast
as to be a hazard, I could probably find it in my heart, as a
hiker, to hold out an arm or a walking stick and give them the
choice of slowing down abruptly or crashing. I try to be equitable
about such things--I'd do the same for a fast-moving bike on a
sidewalk in the city.
Noisy mountain bikes--this probably ought to get the same sort of a
response as a noisy hiker/camper. (Haven't you ever run across
someone obnoxious enough to play a boom box in the woods?)
So far, I'm still in agreement with whoever said "take them on a
case-by-case basis."
--
Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303)444-5710 x3086
...Relax...don't worry...have a homebrew.lowell@fluke.UUCP (10/12/84)
My only experience with mountain bikes stems from a trip that my brother and I took in September into the Pasayten Wilderness of north-central Washington. We borrowed a pair of bikes and spent two days covering about forty miles. We carried overnight gear and technical rock climbing equipment, since our goal was to climb a remote peak reached by the US/Canada boundary trail. Based on this trip, I feel that many of the fears expressed concerning mountain bikes are unjustified. People tend to overlook one basic fact, which is that mountain bikes are muscle-powered. On flat trails, mountain bike tires roll smoothly, causing negligible erosion, especially when compared to horses. (Further, mountain bikes do not leave smelly green droppings, or at least no more than hikers do.) If the trail is muddy, a bike could do some damage, but only as long as the biker insists on riding it. We found that riding through mud is about as much fun as hiking through mud, and a lot more work. Any mountain biker who rides through every mud hole he finds is simply not going to get very far. More likely, he will get off the bike, as necessary, and walk it around. When was the last time you saw a horse do this? On steep trails, of course, erosion could occur. But when the trail gets steep enough that the back wheel starts spinning, the biker is expending much more energy than he can possibly sustain. Even pushing a bike up a trail, especially a rocky one, can be back-breaking work, much harder than hiking. For this reason, steep trails are simply not attractive for biking. The notion that bikes can climb steeper trails than people is nonsense. Because it is so much more work, I doubt that mountain bikers would often cut new trails, either in high, gentle meadows, on steep hillsides, or in flat forests. Riding the trail is far easier. For cross country travel, a mountain bike is about as useful as a ball and chain. True, some bikers may enjoy the thrill or challenge of riding the most difficult terrain they can find, but with that attitude, they will burn themselves out before getting very deep into the backcountry. Probably the toughest issue surrounding mountain bikes is your perception of wilderness, and what does and does not belong there. This question is obviously a personal one. A modern cross country ski incorporates just as much high-tech as a mountain bike. On our trip, my brother and I pedaled quietly and cheerfully, and the hikers we met responded in kind. After their initial surprise passed, these tired-footed hikers, by their questions and comments, seemed to say, "A bicycle, huh? I wish I'd thought of that." Lowell Skoog John Fluke Mfg. Co. Inc. Everett, Washington !fluke!lowell