I love being extra smiley and friendly to any glum walker I see on a ride, it must be a real pain for them to be greeted in a friendly manner and have to be miserable. I see it as a duty to lighten their dull day. Have heared that the Ramblers Association run courses on how to be miserable to all around, you can then wear your red socks with pride.
Bike Forum
[closed]
wow, does this guy NOT like mountain bikers !
-
Posted 2 years ago #
-
This singles him out from the walker whose pace is slower allowing him to look all round as he's walking thereby feeling more related to the country he's going through
we cover more ground though, so i imagine that evens it out?
pesky walkers, walking so slowly, not seeing things over an area of more than a few miles.
tskPosted 2 years ago # -
Doesn't this highlight the beauty (and horror) of the internet? I guy vents his spleen at the world and we sit here bitching about it!
Seriously, my family have some friends who live near Shap. They're really into the walking (written 3 books, I think). Anyhoo, they're lovely people, always have a great time wtih them. The gentleman-half of this couple decided he would wave a giant red flag of generalisations around, just to get rise (it works with my Dad on politics). 3 years later, after much discussion, we have agreed to disagree. But we've also agreed to have a go at each other's "poison".
Some people just won't believe they could be wrong or misinformed. Afterall, if it's online, it must be true!
My 2 cents done.
Posted 2 years ago # -
I do wonder why some folk go out in the country, they look so miserable (not just ramblers either). Surely if you feel like that a beverage of your choice by the fire is a better alternative?
Posted 2 years ago # -
I have to agree that he has some valid points…
And he seems to suffer from some similar prejudices to many members of the cycling community, Lets be fair there’s a fair few cyclists who are similarly grumpy old farts just with a couple of wheels under them…
While it’s worth looking at walkers as a kindred group with a similar agenda to MTBers (Land access, Right to roam, etc) they do have different priorities to many MTBers, most importantly they do seem to place more importance on preservation and conservation or the natural environment (depending on your definition of that)…
Say what you like where we turn up in any number we do have an impact on the environment, not that we are totally oblivious to it, or deliberately cause damage, managed trails are maintained so as to limit the impact of the sport but we are a very visible group leaving obvious signs of presence when start using a bit of land, this is probably what has attracted his distain in the first place…He also seems to take exception to the fact that we communicate and organise as a group via the internet, Can’t say I see that as a flaw, in many ways it makes us a stronger, better informed community, odd also coming from a man who Uses the WWW as his soapbox but still, life in black and white is simpler for some…
In the grand scheme of things this fella’s Blog doesn’t mean a great deal, the grumpy musings of a rambling nature lover he’s entitled to his views and to publish them on his blog, there are plenty of counter points to be found elsewhere on the web.
The problem (or indeed the advantage) with Blogs is that they are about as effective as posting your views on a web forum, 5 minutes of angry ranting from either side and within a day it’s buried in amongst the plethora of other interweb rants that nobody can be arsed to remember or act on (often the originator included)…Posted 2 years ago # -
This guy is the British cousin of Mike V******n
Posted 2 years ago # -
come on guys hes just trying to walk in the contryside!
Posted 2 years ago # -
I do wonder whether some walkers get confused and think us the same as MX bikes.. certainly a few of the miserable gits around the Peaks class us the same.
Actually, has anyone noticed an interesting phenomenon? Walkers up big hills, proper mountains and in inhospitable places in general, seem to be much, much friendlier to bikers than those pottering around the foot hills / lanes with their Goretex and carbon pole things.
Certainly on Snowdon for example, the walkers at the top seem to have great admiration for bikers having hoiked 30lb of bike up there... whereas the ones pootling around the bottom after their pub lunch seem to think us the devil in baggies...
just a thought
Posted 2 years ago # -
You could substitute the word cyclist for walker in the blog and it would read the same.
An inconsiderate person is an inconsiderate person regardless of what they drive / ride or walk.
How many times have you ridden towards a large group of people walking four abreast towards you, spread right accross the bridleway and refuse to give you room?
Littering is a pet peeve of mine too.
From what I read of the blog they seem like a selfish person. Fair enough, they don't affect my life.
Posted 2 years ago # -
RopeyReignRider - Member
.................
Actually, has anyone noticed an interesting phenomenon? Walkers up big hills, proper mountains and in inhospitable places in general, seem to be much, much friendlier to bikers than those pottering around the foot hills / lanes with their Goretex and carbon pole things.
Yup. From a series of discussions on here and my own observations I believe that the further you go from the road, the worse the weather and the further north you are the better reception you receive from walkers.
In the highlands in winter I have never come accross and issues
Posted 2 years ago # -
He's just a little confused about who we are vs kids on bikes with tinnies of Carling.
Posted 2 years ago # -
I'd like to meet him. Properly sit down and talk to him.
I might suggest it.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Think his main fault is for generalising a group... just because a collection of people ride / walk / horse ride / scuba dive etc. doesn't make all of them behave in the same way.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Dunno those Bastard Scuba divers are always cluttering the trails...
Posted 2 years ago # -
He mentions horses in his waffle! Has he any idea what these weigh!! not to mention they wear 4 metal shoes!!
Posted 2 years ago # -
pook - he'll be there at the rag meeting...
(seems like a nice bloke too)
(mind you, it seems that the agenda item concerning bikers is mostly about those with engines)
Posted 2 years ago # -
TandemJeremy - Member [quote]
RopeyReignRider - Member
.................
Actually, has anyone noticed an interesting phenomenon? Walkers up big hills, proper mountains and in inhospitable places in general, seem to be much, much friendlier to bikers than those pottering around the foot hills / lanes with their Goretex and carbon pole things.
Yup. From a series of discussions on here and my own observations I believe that the further you go from the road, the worse the weather and the further north you are the better reception you receive from walkers.
In the highlands in winter I have never come accross and issues
[/quote]I would agree with that other than the further north bit as i have not had any problems down here in the south and only got some odd comments in the peaks.
Posted 2 years ago # -
ahwhiles - I can't make tomorrow night unfortunately. I'll be at the next though.
Let me know how it goes
Posted 2 years ago # -
A bike is much more efficient at eroding the surface of paths than a walkers boots for obvious reasons.
Oh this old chestnut again!
I did my dissertation on this and have many references (Seney being the most noteable one from the USA) to say there is little measurable difference between the two. I'll pop in a proper citation when I get home
Oh, btw way more erosion from horses...
Posted 2 years ago # -
Oxymoron - the problem is the number of variables that cannot be controlled or measured. Saturated peat is just mashed up by mtbs in no timne
Citations would be interesting.
Just anecdotally from what I have seen the type of soil and steepness of the terrain make a huge difference and seem to have different effects on bike and boot erosion rates. Purely observational / anecdotal tho.
Posted 2 years ago # -
owenfackrell - Member
TandemJeremy - Member [quote]
RopeyReignRider - Member
.................
Actually, has anyone noticed an interesting phenomenon? Walkers up big hills, proper mountains and in inhospitable places in general, seem to be much, much friendlier to bikers than those pottering around the foot hills / lanes with their Goretex and carbon pole things.
Yup. From a series of discussions on here and my own observations I believe that the further you go from the road, the worse the weather and the further north you are the better reception you receive from walkers.
In the highlands in winter I have never come accross and issues
I would agree with that other than the further north bit as i have not had any problems down here in the south and only got some odd comments in the peaks.
And here in South Wales, the only confrontations I've ever had in the hills in the last 15 years have been with farmers (twice I think). Walkers around here are more likely to just have a chat than complain about MTBers.
Posted 2 years ago # -
This chap is like an OAP clarkson, making amusing generalisations and blaming anyone but himself.Erosion is a fact of life wherever man goes, walkers horses bikes vehicles all contribute, there are plenty of paths that never see a bike and need repair just from footfall.
The walkers I have encountered are largely good natured, usually impressed that you are biking in the hills, I think provided you're not frightening them with excessive speed they are mostly fine. The only walkers with bad attitudes I have ever encountered seem to be the over 60's ramblers in larger groups, who have grown old not been used to, or accepting of bikes on their beloved walks.
Posted 2 years ago # -
So the next mass singletrack group ride will be..........BLACKAMOOR yes?
Posted 2 years ago # -
sounds good! Redmires, stanage, lady canning, blackamoor....
Posted 2 years ago # -
Think you will find that people walking will make
more errossion to the forest than a Mountain biker.Posted 2 years ago # -
The extract below is taken from 'Cessford, G.R. 2002. Perception and Reality of Conflict: Walkers and
Mountain Bikes on the Queen Charlotte Track in New Zealand.'Environmental concerns often feature when people discuss problems associated with
biking in natural areas. In a sample of walkers, Horn (1994a) found that 75% considered that
environmental damage from biking was a problem. A similar focus for concern has been
found among park managers, including 35% of those surveyed in Chavez et al. (1993), and
42% in Chavez (1996a). However, it is important to note that these impacts have almost
always been related directly to the tracks on which bikes are ridden, rather than on the
environments though which the tracks pass. Like any outdoor recreationists, riders will have
impacts on the environment, including the soils, vegetation, water, and wildlife. But because
most walkers and riders stay on the tracks, wider environmental consequences are minimal
because the direct physical effects are generally confined to the track surface.
Only in particular cases may the passage of bikes or walkers result in significant impact on
important environmental features, as opposed to normal wear-and-tear on tracks. For
example, Goeft & Alder (2000) described a case where bikes were included along with
walkers, forestry vehicles and wildlife as potential vectors by which a particular plant disease
could be spread. Woehrstein (1998, 2001) noted that numerous European studies had found
little difference in effects of walkers and bikers on wildlife. And Papouchis et al (2001) found
that bikers had far less disturbance effects on Bighorn Sheep than walkers, mainly due to
walkers more often moving off tracks and surprising or approaching the animals. To date
there appears to be no evidence of bikes having any more significant impact on important
environmental features than other recreation uses (Cessford, 1995a; Woehrstein, 1998, 2001;
Weir, 2000).
Biking does have an effect on the condition of tracks. These effects are often highly
visually distinctive from those of walking due to the basic differences between tyre tracks and
CESSFORD: PERCEPTION AND REALITY OF CONFLICT: WALKERS AND MOUNTAIN BIKES
ON THE QUEEN CHARLOTTE TRACK IN NEW ZEALAND
footprints. Related to this visual perception, the main concern expressed is that bike tyres
create linear channels that may promote runoff and erosion, as opposed to the puddling caused
by footprints (Keller, 1990). Bjorkman (1996) and others have made extensive investigations
that clearly demonstrated impacts on tracks from bikes, although these were not compared
with those of walkers. What is not clear is the relative significance of bike and boot impacts
on tracks. For park managers, this distinction is particularly important when they are
considering the costs of track maintenance. The usual perception is that biking has
disproportionately higher impact on tracks than does walking. However, when the
comparative effects of different recreation activities have been investigated, the real
differences identified do not conform to these perceptions.
Comparative research on track impacts by Weaver & Dale (1978) found that motorbikes
had the greatest effects while going uphill, but that when going downhill, the effects of horses
and walkers were greater. Including bikes, Wilson and Seney (1994) identified a similar
pattern, and noted that lighter and low-powered bikes had much less track impact potential
than motorbikes. And European research has found that while bikes had greater uphill effects,
walkers had greater downhill effects (Woehrstein 1998, 2001). This draws attention to the
basic distinction between the mechanical effects of rolling wheels and stepping feet (Cessford
1995a; Weir, 2000), which both have impacts in different ways.
Despite the general perception otherwise, most available comparative reviews and studies
have concluded that while visibly very different, the physical impacts of bikes on tracks were
not any worse than those of walkers overall (Keller, 1990; Wilson & Seney, 1994; Chavez et
al. 1993; Ruff & Mellors; 1993, Cessford, 1995a; Woehrstein, 1998, 2001; Weir, 2000;
Thurston & Reader, 2001;). This appears to be the case whether considering important
biological features or the physical state of the tracks. On this basis, selective restrictions to
biking based on physical impact concerns may be inappropriate. Any physical impact
problems that arise are more likely to be the effects of greater use-levels overall, or from
tracks passing through physically sensitive environments, particularly related to bad drainage
characteristics. Here it seems that the problem relates more to how biking is generally
perceived rather than the actual effects it may have.Posted 2 years ago # -
so there you go, much a do about nothing, trouble is this chap will keep banging on and on at this meeting and that meeting and eventually he'll get something changed through shear persistence rather than any scientific reasoning, then he'll die happy having achieved something!
this chap highlights erosion, but he's talking about erosion of his footpath, one small strip amongst acres of untouched land, when scientists talk about erosion, they're talking on a grand scale, 18" of cliffs falling away on the south coast every year etc, this is nature at work, that's erosion, not a few individuals on foot or bike.
as for puddling in footprints, i disagree, a couple of minutes of torrential rain will have those puddled footprints overflowing and the water will run off anyway. and is it not better if the tyre tracks promote running off, surely the paths will drain quicker!
Posted 2 years ago # -
Being friendly with a Peaks Ranger who is humself a cyclist (on & off road) we have spoken about trail erosion several times.
He tells me that the Rangers now have an unofficial policy of turning a blind eye to bikes on already eroded-to-rock trails as they are denuded of peat and unlikely to become worse, however they crack down strongly on bikers riding the peaty trails that can become easily damaged.
Their reasoning is that tyre ruts allow faster water run off than boot prints so that the delicate peat soil is eroded faster.Personally this suits me as, A) riding in soft peat isn't much fun and buggers your drivetrain & B) the rocky stuff is much nicer to ride on.
Of course, if challenged about this he will deny all knowledge!
Posted 2 years ago # -
IMO It’s just an increase of numbers that causes the erosion whether they be walking or riding. Mountain biking has just given more people the opportunity and excuse to go out and enjoy our beautiful countryside.
Posted 2 years ago # -
I'd like to meet him. Properly sit down and talk to him.
I might suggest it.
Recommend that anyone who is interested in putting mountain bikers views forward get themselves down to the next Blackamoor Reserves Advisory Group (Blackamoor RAG) meeting run by Sheffield Wildlife Trust (think there's one in near future, at Totley Methodist Church Hall?).
From what I recall, the blogger is one of a very vocal minority who really just want Blackamoor to be a dog exercise park (i.e. no bikers, barbed wire fences, cattle etc.) where they can let 'em off the lead for a poo.
Posted 2 years ago # -
last night was hilarious!
the blogger dude suggested the creation of a new footpath, and suggested that 10 people could create it by walking along the route half-a-dozen times.
er... wouldn't that be a good example of the kind of erosion that evil bicyclists are guilty of?
just a thought.
(he's really not a bad bloke, in a sort of best-mate's-favourite-uncle kind of way, good to talk with, lots to say, always worth listening to, just don't mention the war/greeks/neil kinnock/etc)
Posted 2 years ago # -
Oh no, the meeting was last night then - Bugger! Mind you, I was working anyway:(
The blogger sounds like the 'character' that I've encountered (not a retired fella is he?)
Posted 2 years ago # -
the blogger dude suggested the creation of a new footpath, and suggested that 10 people could create it by walking along the route half-a-dozen times.
shot himself in the foot there then!
Posted 2 years ago # -
Why was it that the sudden appearance of bike tracks where they’ve never been before coincided with fresh drinks containers found at the side of very quiet paths when there’s never been litter before?
seems to me this man may well be confusing mountain bikers with kids who use bikes as a mode of transport to find somewhere to have a quiet drink away from their parents/the police!
Posted 2 years ago # -
All about education!
Educating bikers who don't currently respect the land to respect it
and
educting people like this to understand that while we can all be pigeonholed together we are not all the same and on the whole the bad minority are more visible / remembered for what they do than the good majority. (Bit like saying all [insert random group] are going to be [insert negative association] given half the chance)
Funny as hell that there are still people out there than don't quite get the whole sterotyping based on a minorities actions doesn't quite work
Posted 2 years ago #
Topic Closed
This topic has been closed to new replies.
