MOUNTAIN BIKE USE OF PUBLIC FACILITIES Cycling in the wilderness - legitimate or not? by Jonathan Kennett and Paul Hughes, October 1994 [ Published in the Federated Mountain Clubs (FMC) Newsletter, early 1995 The FMC is an unmbrella organisation representing mostly tramping and mountaineering clubs in New Zealand. A few mountain bike clubs have also joined. ] For more than a century cyclists have been exploring the sort of rough tracks that mountain bikers now use in large numbers. However, it wasn't until the 1970s that technological advances such as strong lightweight steel and multiple gears were utilised by a few Californian cyclists to develop the first 'Clunkers'(mountain bikes). By the mid '80s, off-road bicycles were being imported into New Zealand, and most keen cycle tourers, who has been cycling off- road for years, realised their potential for fun and exploration. From these almost inevitable beginnings a new form of outdoor recreation has evolved, and it has bought with it some problems. Growth Surveys of participation levels in the Wellington metropolitan area over the last 20 years show a growth in mountain biking/cycling from 4% in 1974 to 17% in 1988 to 32% in 1993. At the same time walking has grown from 32% in 1974 to 85% in 1993, and tramping has dropped from 10% in 1974 to 6% in 1993 (WRC statistics). Recreations that people aspire to do in the future are, tramping (11%), mountain biking/cycling (9%) and walking (4%). Most peoples (57%) main impediment to recreating is lack of time, so tramping of any duration is likely to suffer to the benefit of mountain biking and walking. Some bike shops believe that after ten years of strong growth the sales of mountain bikes in 1994 have plateau out at an estimated 120,000 nationwide. Although this figure seems staggering, 60%-- 80% of these bikes will seldom, if ever, be taken off road. Who, where, why? A 1993 DOC survey of mountain bikers found that their socio demographic characteristics were similar to those of other active outdoor recreation groups (70% are 20--40 years of age, 85% are males, most are professionals or students). After mountain biking, their main activities are running (28%), tramping (20%), road cycling (20%), walking (17%), and skiing (17%). These figures suggest that many bikers are aware of potential track user conflicts. Respondents of the DOC survey listed the most important features of riding as; 1) exploring new areas (60%), 2) appreciating views/scenery/nature, and 3) exercise/fitness (56%). Among experienced riders speed/excitement/risk (58%) and physical/skill challenge also ranked highly. As you would expect from these findings mountain bikers prefer riding in native forest, followed by exotic forest, then farmland areas. Correspondingly, single tracks (a.k.a. walking and tramping tracks) are the most popular, followed by firebreaks, then farm tracks, gravel roads and least appealing of all are sealed roads (DOC 1993). This is not only because single tracks are most often found in native forest but also because they provide the most interesting type of riding. However, the majority of single tracks in New Zealand are unrideable by mountain bikes because they are too steep and/or have very rough surfaces. Generally, unless a track has been well constructed (i.e. benched and/or gravelled) it will be unrideable. It was also found that riders strongly wanted to avoid motorised vehicles and preferred to avoid walkers. Also, most riders are willing to carry or push their bikes for up to 25% of a trip (DOC 1993). MTB clubs and FMC In recent times organised mountain bike activity has become a significant growth sector of FMC membership. Many tramping and climbing clubs are now running mountain bike trips, and two mountain bike clubs have joined FMC. Others, such as the Hutt Valley Mountainbike Club, are waiting until the FMC stance on bikers sharing the backcountry is clearer. At the 1994 AGM, FMC "welcomed MTB Clubs joining the Federation" and sought to establish a MTB sub-committee. It appears that the philosophy of off-road cycling fits in well with the wide ranging backcountry recreation that FMC clubs participate in. An ethic of "under your own steam" natural backcountry recreation/exploration is shared by both walkers/trampers and a lot of MTB people. The busy lives that we lead these days push us towards activities that take less time, so that short walks and mountain bike rides are better able to be undertaken than tramping and climbing. Effects of Mtb use Social effects Although many mountain bikers participate in other outdoor activities, it's fair to assume that this new activity is encouraging a significant number of new people to enjoy recreating in the outdoors. Cycling in backcountry environments is a lot safer than on roads (only one mountain bike fatality since 1984), and a lot healthier. Another positive effect is that these new outdoors people are bound to have their conservation values broadened and strengthened. The more people who value the backcountry the stronger its protection status will be. User Conflict The fear of being hit by a mountain bike travelling at speed is the main source of conflict between walkers and riders (submissions to the Wellington City Council in March 1994). Despite strong expectations to the contrary, the risk to walkers is actually extremely low. We are unaware of any injuries to walkers from mountain bikers, although a small number probably have occurred. The greatest threat from speed is to the mountain bikers themselves, as they often crash and are occasionally injured. However, when someone rides closely past a walker (especially from behind, or at speed) a danger may be perceived even if the rider is in complete control. This perception, although largely unfounded, is real, and mountain bikers need to be aware that many walkers have little idea of how much control they have. This point is covered in the Mountain Bikers Off-road Code which states; 'Pass with care. Let others know of your presence well in advance. A greeting will suffice. Being startled will upset even the most tolerant walker'. Another problem is the effect mountain bikes have of intruding on walkers/trampers wilderness experience. There is no doubt that bicycles can be more intrusive to walkers than other walkers (although not nearly as intrusive as any form of motorised transport). Wilderness is an important state of mind and if a walker feels that their experience has been lessened by meeting even a stationary bike, then it has. One positive measure that some DOC conservancies are taking is the signing of tracks (e.g. 'Mountain bikers, please give way to walkers'). This has two effects: 1) it tells mountain bikers to be careful and courteous, and 2) it prepares walkers for the eventuality of meeting riders on the track. This is a great way of encouraging people to develop new interactive attitudes and effectively dispels much potential conflict. Change Part of the user conflict problem is that walkers are not used to sharing tracks with mountain bikers. People under twenty aren't usually perturbed by cyclists. This may be because they have grown up with mountain bikes or perhaps they just don't value relaxing completely safe environments as much. It is clear, however, that older walkers are not likely to change their perceptions for a while, so the areas they favour should be respected. Solutions Tracks can be modified to reduce some of the conflicts mentioned above. For example a cyclists speed can be effectively reduced by building (or not removing) technical obstacles such as water bars, logs across the track, steps and boulders. Also, walkers are less perturbed by bikes on wider trails as there is more room to pass. Education of mountain bikers (through peer pressure, promotion of the Off-road Code and track signing) and tolerance of walkers is the solution most often suggested by mountain bikers. Certainly this would go a long way to changing the social effects of mountain biking. All the same, a number of tracks need to be allocated for walkers only so that people can enjoy a completely peaceful carefree wander. Also, a few downhill tracks should be allocated to mountain bikers only, so that speed enthusiasts can test their limits without endangering others. Trampers will always have plenty of tracks to themselves as most are unrideable. Facility effects In 1992 DOC conducted a survey of people tramping the Heaphy Track to gauge user conflict. Most trampers didn't mind sharing the track with bikers, but many were not happy with the damage bikers were causing on the section of track between Lewis and McKay huts. Infact this section had never been ridden over by bikes because it was unrideable - it had never been built or maintained properly and bikers had always carried or pushed their bikes on this section. In this and many other cases there is a perception that mountain bikes are causing track damage when they are not. "Most physical impact research has concluded that the construction and route of a track are more important in determining the potential for damage to it than are the types of a track recreational use it receives. Tracks which may be considered susceptible to damage by mountain bikes, are likely to be also damaged as much by any other type of use, including walking."(DOC 1993) The main agent of track erosion is water damage caused by poor construction and maintenance, and often occurs regardless of the level of use. However, on some types of tracks, it is likely that mountain bikes exacerbate erosion. In some conditions tyre tracks can help water to run with a track rather than off it, thus encouraging water damage. Another erosion problem, this time related to the rider rather than the bike, is that of skidding. This is commonly found on steeper tracks and breaks up unconsolidated track surfaces. Skidding results from riding technique and can be mitigated by rider education. Tracks can often be modified to better withstand increased use (eg gravelling, water bars, partial benching, etc). Mountain bike clubs often volunteer to do this work and have adopted and built several tracks in the last few years. It is often suggested that if a track shows signs of erosion from biking, then riders should be banned. Many walking tracks show significant signs of erosion but there is never a call to ban walkers from them. several boggy tracks have been so cut up by walkers that they resemble quagmires, and require extensive boardwalking at huge cost. Are not mountain bikers entitled to a share of the taxpayer funded track maintenance budget?. Many tracks are receive relatively little use from walkers, but are part of the overall $10 million spent on track maintenance nationally by DoC. Is it fair for walkers/trampers to retain exclusive use of such an extensive and expensive taxpayer funded asset?. If use of these tracks was increased by allowing mountain biking on them, is that not a better and more equitable use of resources? More people using and interested in tracks should create a climate of greater resourcing of tracks, rather than the present sinking-lid funding. Environmental effects Reduced carbon dioxide emissions. Mountain bikers usually ride to the start of a track rather than drive and often use their bikes for general commuting as well. Vegetation and soil damage Vegetation on the sides of tracks can be damaged when riders skirt around puddles and mud. This is aggravated by poor maintenance. These effects are also caused by walkers. Mountain bikes are unable to cause much off-track damage as native bush, wetlands, and sand dunes almost always present unrideable terrain. 4. NZ and overseas directions Legislation MTB management in NZ has largely been based on laws that were passed before mountain bikes were invented. Most legislation uses the definition of "vehicle" from the ??1955?? Transport Act which includes anything with wheels over 16 inches in diameter. This puts wheelchairs, most bicycles and some prams in the same category as trucks, buses, cars, motorbikes, trailbikes and 4WD's. The National Parks, Reserves, and Wildlife Acts regard mountain bikes as vehicles and have banned them from all tracks on their estate. Bicycles are only allowed on formed and maintained roads in these areas. By legal default this closes several excellent recreational opportunities to mountain bikers. The Conservation Act, which has covered Forest Parks, Marginal Strips and other Conservation land since 1987, does not restrict the use of mountain bikes. This has left each DOC conservancy open to manage mountain biking according to track suitability and recreational demand. The Wellington City and Regional Council have adopted an 'open to mountain bikes unless declared closed' policy to their parks and reserves. This recognises the legitimacy of mountain biking, yet still enables them to provide specifically for other users. Walkways legislation provides for public access other than for walking purposes. Unless bylaws are in force to ban bicycles or the walkway crosses private land mountain biking is permitted. Education The Mountain Bikers' Off-Road Code was written by mountain bikers to help educate riders. It aims to encourage riders to respect the land, other users, and themselves. It is already in wide circulation but should ideally be given away with every mountain bike sold. Track signing and peer pressure are also effective ways of educating riders. USA directions Observations of backcountry management in the USA indicates that two scenarios develop: a) The walkers/hikers and land managers resist any MTB use of natural or recreational lands and facilities. In some USA states, mountain bikers have been fiercely resisted by the walking/tramping groups and a lot of negative energy has been wasted by walkers/trampers, mountain bikers, and land administrators in fighting each other. b) The walkers/hikers get together with the MTB people and co- operate. There are many instances in USA states where groups such as the Sierra Club and mountain bikers have a close working relationship and share many tracks. It is seen as a mutually rewarding relationship that has overall benefits. Management directions Scale of track management possibilities running from typically positive to negative actions. Promote -> sign the track -> user education -> redesign the track -> promote use on other tracks -> do nothing -> one-way travel - > ban on certain days or months -> build a separate track -> total track ban (for walkers or cyclists?). 5. Where to from here? We need to ask ourselves if mountain biking off-road is legitimate in a social, environmental, and economic sense. If the answer is yes then the following points need to be considered. While the number of mountain bikers increases, the number of tracks they are allowed to ride is decreasing. Considering the low environmental impact and huge recreational demand it does not seem fair that the majority of tramping/walking tracks are banned to mountain bikers. We have the choice of sharing many of our tracks, or wasting a lot of walkers, land managers, and mountain bikers time, fighting. Can we afford such a fight?. In many cases there is total agreement between walkers and mountain bikers on which tracks are OK for MTB and which are not. Should we ensure that this agreement is acted on?. Do we need excessive regulations in the backcountry or is sweat the ultimate regulator?. We have the opportunity for walkers and mountain bikers to work together to all improve public track facilities and public land management. Can we pass up the opportunity to work together for mutual benefit?. We invite your valued comment to assist the Federation, Clubs, members, and mountain bikers in reaching a better understanding of each others views and aspirations for our backcountry. [In some cases mountain biking has been successfully stopped on high social conflict tracks such as the Orongorongo Track in Rimutaka Forest Park by education and persuasion, without the backing of any law.]