Forum menu
>As for needing to drive, look at the old photos of people riding out to the local tt with spare wheels. I seem to remember one of the current tt riders doesn't drive, rides to events and still wins.<Wouldn't know - the OP posted about mountain biking.
It makes FA difference, just a bit slower. If you want to ride you ride. If you want to spend your time posing in trail centre car parks that is your call i guess.
As far as I'm concerned that's something that takes place in mountains. For sure I do most of my riding in the Central Scotland bad/flatlands but that's just training for days and weekends away in the big hills. And that sure is neither cheap nor accessible.
And for the vast majority of the population there are no mountains in the UK to have to worry about, just riding in the local woods. But if you want to ride in real mountains, I remember a few years back seeing people in Verbier doing Cristalp who had ridden from the UK... Depends on what motivates you. Bling or riding.
Rusty Spanner - MemberAlso a big part of why you hardly see any younger people out on the trails?
S'all middle aged old farts round here.
Very little younger new blood at all.
There are loads of younger riders down here in Swansea. Easily as many as the 40+ yr old fat guys. Lots of dirtjumpers coming across to MTB as well.
What's next? 650b and 7/10ths?
link please
crosshair - MemberI also love the way everyone argues their own position with no thought of being objective.
Very true.
[i]As far as seeing Asian/black kids on bikes - there is a school of thought that some ethnic groups see the bicycle not as a leisure tool but as a poor man's means of transport. As most of these groups have immigrated to the UK to try to improve their lot, they see the bicycle as a symbol of poverty, and aspire to greater things. This is why most of them are in cars almost from the point that they can reach the pedals. [/i]
+1
When I was working in India the Senior Manager I dealt with commented:
"what, can't you afford a car?"
When I mentioned I commuted on a motorcycle. I then Google'd my bike (Triumph 1050), and he was gob-smacked. As a 150cc is a big bike in India.
Rather than jump in on this topic last night I had a think about the whole topic and thought I'd post today, sorry for unearthing a now old thread. Forgive the long post also...
I think the thing is "Cost of entry" or "Expense" all depends on what what sort of cycling you are looking at to start with.
As a "leisure activity" purely cycling for the enjoyment of it, Non-competitive cycling? It can be as cheap or expensive as you want really. A couple of hundred quid or less and you can roll about on a BSO or a reasonable 2nd hand bike for several years without much bother that's probably sufficient for most of the population...
Reading some of the comics you'd be forgiven for thinking you [I]Have[/I] to spend £700+ on an "Entry" level bike to ride round your local woods or do a loop on the roads, and half as much again on "Accessories", we all know £300 - £350 (maybe less if you are canny) will buy you a functional Road bike or MTB that you can probably drag through a couple of winters and maybe have a pop at racing on without too much trouble...
Interested in Competition? well that's a broad topic isn't it.
I suppose it covers everything from Sportives to DH racing and all points inbetween, suffice to say again you can compete in most disciplines on a relative shoestring, but go to any race and your attention will probably be drawn by the exotica and brand new bling on display, and you'll maybe miss the fella still doing OK on a 10 year old 'Nag'... The cost is relative though, if you enjoy cycling enough to want to compete, you'll probably end up balancing what you can afford against what you "need" to take part...
Cycling as Transport? My current commuter cost ~£200 and pretty much paid for itself in petrol savings within about 3-4 months. Spend more, ride to work more, pretty much any bike can be justified for getting to work in the long run TBH. The Cost of cycling as transport compares rather favourably with the alternatives and that ignores the health benefits...
The comparisons drawn with football are interesting. Yes all you need to play football is a ball, some space and at least one other person (the more the merrier IME) but the costs of football can escalate a bit too the more you get into it, Boots, kit, club subs, etc, you can spend some money on it... but then you are probably getting more back out in terms of fitness, endorphins and being sociable than the simple financial outlay would indicate...
Then there's the cost of following a sport, again following football can cost a fortune, season tickets, traveling to away games, the apparently mandatory sky sports subscription, or spending hours and hours in the pub; I've got mates who are "into" football, which means they watch it a lot, talk about it a lot, but don't seem to play it much, despite this, the "Beautiful game" soaks up a reasonable chunk of their income and does rather little for their health.... Following cycling? well its pretty much free, you seldom have to pay to watch it, if you do it's comparatively cheap, most of the broadcast coverage is either on free to air channels or via the interwebz...
I'd say on balance, yes cycling equipment is comparatively expensive, but you can get a lot out of it for the money, and the cost of participation (club memberships, race entries, etc) is about on par with any other mainstream sporting activity.
Different sports/pastimes/hobbies appeal to different people for different reasons, the conspicuous display of wealth element exists within cycling (as in any sport or hobby probably), as does the "Look what I can do with next to no money" brigade, perhaps simply enjoying it and not worrying about the cost of everything is the key thing...
I think the big thing with off road riding is that to most people it seems a bit odd - why would you want to ride round in the woods in the rain and mud, getting cold and filthy? On top of this you have the marketing depatments and Red Bull / Monster trying to promote it as an extreme sport whoch makes people think that you'll get hurt (on top of being cold and muddy).
It's also pretty niche - not many people outside of those already into it will know who Steve Peat or Rachel Atherton are. I hate football with a passion, but I know who the bog teams are and can name players etc.
The prices have escalated massively - my first bike was an inherited Barracuda which I rode whilst saving up for my first proper bike; a '97 Spesh Rockhopper which was £400. That was a lot of paper rounds! Although the bike was rigid, I think it was still better value for money then some of the modern bikes. I think VFM peaked around 07 and has since gone downhill. A current £700 Rockhopper was rubbish forks and Acera bits yet a few years ago it has Avid brakes, proper Rock Shox forks etc.
I would say that I have a pretty nice main bike but I am pretty price conscious. The forks were second hand and I've had them for ages and all of the new bits were bought in the sales. I bought a posh (for me) frame this year because I was seconded to a client in London and getting paid extra so treated myself. Had I not been, I would have kept on riding my beaten up old SX Trail. RRP prices are insane - a chap from work wanted to get a reasonable bike through the C2W scheme for commuting on and couldn't get his head around how much bikes and components were. It was pretty hard to explain / justify!
As for other gear, this does seem to be going the same way. I mean £100 for some 5 10's. Really? I have a pair but waited until they were heavily discounted. Again, a lot of my gear is bought in the sales because I could never bring myself to buy a pair of shorts for £80 plus.
For someone who wants to get into MTBing as a hobby, the cost of kit must be pretty shocking especially when picking up mags like STW who have £1,500 starter bikes for advice.
On the other hand trail centres do make it more accessible because you know that you will be able to ride it as well as have an OK ride. Whether you approve or not, it must be more fun for someone giving it a go to visit Cannock, Glentress etc than get lost round the Peaks being shouted at by angry walkers / walking stuff that doesn't look rideable etc.
As for it being a white male dominated sport, as far as I can remember, it always has been and it doesn't appear to have changed much over the years. How you change it, I don't know but there are more ladies riding which is a good thing. It is currently pretty elitist from the outside and does have an image that you need to spend loads to participate.
In my experience, the accessibility of mountain biking is as much a function of your desire to do it as it is a function of your disposable income.
I started out on a Raleigh Maverick and it was a great bike. Technology moved on, suspension came into play, disc brakes became the norm, lights improved massively to the extent that I think that today it's cheaper to get riding than it ever has been. What my first mountain bike did was open up a whole world of possibilities that I've embraced ever since.
There is no compulson to spend thousands of pounds although the option to do so is there more than ever. That's a choice for folk to make and if they have the means, why not? It won't necessarily mean that they are having more fun though than anyone else. I have a wry smile when I see carbon full sussers costing £5k and upwards. I'm not sure where the tipping point is but there is definitely a point at which the incremental benefits decline, the more you pay. Of course, that point for me will no doubt differ from everyone else. I like kit that is reliable and is hopefully less likely to fail when out in the boonies or when being subjected to hard riding on technical trails and on all day adventures. The riding I do today could still be done on my old maverick. However, the advances in technology have meant that my bikes are now a bit lighter, more reliable, stop better and are more comfrtable than ever before which in their own way contribute to a better experience. However, if I was still riding the Maverick, I'd still have the same sh*t eating grin.
I guess what I am trying to say is that the bike and the gear are secondary, it's committing to riding in the first place that is key. 😀
Rustyspanner
Just reading some of your comments.
I'm laughing at the thought of the team at the mag holding a meeting to discuss aspirational reader demographics! 😀 Magazines test the bikes that they are given. If manufacturers and distributers want to profile their higher end products in order to generate wider brand awareness, that's nothing new and is pretty much standard in todays consumer society. Muddy Fox were doing it over 25 years ago with their £5,000 gold plated mountain bike!
Prices have gone up but then so has the cost of everything. Petrol prices, gas and electricity, housing etc. It's not something peculiar to bikes. What has changed since I started mountain biking in the late 80s is the technological development which has gone through the roof. Back then, you could still buy really expensive bikes e.g. Klein, Fat Chance, Mountain Goat and of course dead cheap bikes - Emmelle anyone? If memory serves, a Klein framest back in the day was over £2k. Eek!
Back then, suspension was a rarity and almost all mountain bikes available were fully rigid. Frame material and drivetrain were the main differentiators. Fast forward to now and the main mountain bike I am currently riding has disc brakes, full suspension, a dropper post and is a fair chunk lighter than my maverick. It costs £2,000 and is a considerably better bike. If I could jump back in time, my younger self would probably have a fit to see the improvements.
Ultimately, each person has to choose what their cost / benefit trade off is. As such, there will always be an element of exclusion. Even if it was free, I suspect many folk would still not get a bike as it doesn't fit in with their view of life. No one has to ride a bike. It's all about choice. 🙂
Magazines test the bikes that they are given.
Yes, but:
1) Only from the manufacturers / distributers who they invite to submit a bike for test. This will usually bear a more than passing resemblance to the ones who advertise in their mags. which is fair enough, but does generally mean you won't see stuff from other sources.
2) They'll get given the bikes that fit the test they've asked for bikes for. If the magazine put out the call for £1,500 hardtails, they're not going to get sent any £300 basic models are they?
And it is the magazines who call this, they are the ones who set a price point when they do the group tests, and they did all shoot up a lot round about the time the world's economies went wappy, and have continued to do so since. For example, in 2007, when I was looking for a cheap full suspension bike, What Mountain Bike's "Cheap Full Suspension" group test review was based on a £500 price point. The bike that won (Rockrider 6.3 from Decathlon) was actually only £300, although shortly afterwards they went up to £350. Anyway, their 2008 "Cheap Full Sus" price point was £1,000. Decathlon, at the time, were still selling the previous year's winner at £350, which calls into question the rationale for a doubling in price for what constitutes "cheap". I've not looked, but I wouldn't be surprised if a "cheap full sus" is now a couple of grand?
Some fantastic responses just above. Really interesting points of view.
So on an economic level, there appears to be an argument that those with less disposable income are being 'priced out' of mountain biking, with a counter argument that suggest mountain biking is relatively 'cheaper' in terms of capable equipment being available for comparatively less money now than it was previously. The recent price spikes have reinforced mountain biking as an 'expensive' hobby though, undoubtedly, as the various threads on the cost of the sport on here will attest. Sure, there have always been expensive bikes, but it seems there are a lot more now, so somebody must be buying them!
I'm laughing at the thought of the team at the mag holding a meeting to discuss aspirational reader demographics!
I'd be amazed if they weren't considering who their target market is, quite frankly. They wouldn't survive long is they didn't. Again, it would be interesting to read their views on this, particularly in relation to Rusty Spanner's suggestions that they do behave in an elitist and exclusive manner.
And then; is there perhaps a small element of not wishing to broaden participation further, by those central to the sport? That it is indeed preferable to keep things exclusive and undiluted? A sort of 'gentlemans' club' type ethos? I'm not saying that this is in any way deliberate, more simply a subconscious need to retain control of something good, rather than see it 'degraded' through mass participation. Would it be fair to suggest, as Rusty Spanner seems to be doing, that this is possibly the case?
On a cultural level; hopefully issues which prevent or exclude other groups from participating will evaporate over time, but I do think these issues need to be addressed from both sides. No good spending loads of time and effort on targeting particular groups, is no members of those groups have the desire to become involved; parading Oliver Skeete didn't see much of an increase in the numbers of black people getting involved in equestrian events, it's still very much a 'white upper class' sport.
I don't think an ostrich mentality, as displayed by some people on here, is helpful though. Maybe we should all be asking what we can be doing to help introduce others to the sport, and help them enjoy it as we do, or should a sport gain prominence purely through it's own merits?
Why must it seek to gain prominence? Why should we be introducing others to it?
Funnily enough, just sat here reading issue 85.
After making an effort recently to include a few cheaper bikes, the bikes tested in the latest issue come in at an average of £4497.00.
Yes, I know a few people on here spend that much on bikes.
The vast majority never have and never will.
I always assumed the tests of ultra high end vehicles in car/bike magazines were aimed at small boys furiously masturbating over pictures of Ferraris and Ducatis in their bedrooms.
Is this the bicycle equivalent?
I don't mind reading about the high end occaisionally, but FFS give us a break, will you?
Truffles and caviar for every meal would get a bit tedious after a while (I imagine 🙂 ). Can we have beans on toast a bit more often?
The rest of the mag is as good as it usually is, but the feeling that it isn't aimed at people like me anymore is getting hard to ignore.
Very good questions njee20. Personally, I'd love to see more people enjoying something I love doing, and seeing more of the world in which we live. Mountain biking is a great way to do that. It's also a healthy activity, so has many potentially positive social benefits.
Do you not want to see more people becoming involved? Would you prefer it if remained something exclusive to yourself and a small number of others?
And for you and Rusty Spanner (and anyone else interested):
Cyclists can help Britain's economy get back on its bike suggests researchCycling contributes almost [b]£3 billion[/b] to the UK economy shows a new report from the London School of Economics and Political Science which also reveals that almost a quarter of the population are now cyclists.
The study quantifies for the first time the full economic success story of the UK’s cycling sector which generates £2.9 billion for the British economy, equating to a value of £230 for every biking Briton in the country.
208 million cycle journeys were made in 2010 meaning that there were 1.3 million more cyclists bringing the total UK cycle population to 13 million. The increasing levels of participation mean more money with new cyclists contributing £685 million to the UK economy.
cycle pathDr Alexander Grous of LSE’s Department of Management calculated a “Gross Cycling Product” by taking into account factors such as bicycle manufacturing, cycle and accessory retail and cycle related employment. A 28 per cent jump in retail sales last year led to 3.7 million bikes being sold at [b]an average price of £439 each[/b]. Accessory sales also made a significant contribution, followed by a further £500 million through the 23,000 people employed in the sector.
The increased levels of cycling also bring a range of benefits for businesses. Regular cyclists take one sick-day less per year, which saves the economy £128 million per year in absenteeism. Dr Grous found that over a ten year period the net present value of cost savings to the economy could rise to be £1.6 billion. A 20 per cent rise in cyclists by 2015 could save a stretched NHS £52 million in costs. There are also potential benefits associated with reductions in congestion and pollution
I have pondered all the points in cybicle's post in the past, as I was looking for some low cost sporty fun. Having already had family participating in motorsport and horsy competition in the past, mountain biking is the most accessible. BUT only if you ignore the hype and big sell. You don't need expensive toys to have fun on your local trails and tracks. I have a cheap, it does the job bike for less than 500 quid., a pair of cheap thick ladies leggings for winter riding. Cheap supermarket T shirts, fleeces, hiking boots and a pair of high top trainers for dry days. You don't need shimano shoes and pay 100s for clothing which gets snagged on bramble and covered in dung 😉
It is so easy for newbies to mtb to come to a forum like this and get put off by all the huge prices being thrown about and in some ways I think some people do alienate others who can't afford top end machines. There is perhaps too much focus on trends and fashion and not enough on practical needs for lower budget buyers who just want to get out and have a go at grinding a granny ring and hopping a few bumps downhill in the woods or ride the red trail at a trail centre. Plenty of old retro bikes are out there, being ridden so you don't need brand new and expensive.
If you want to race, well that's going to get very expensive if you need to use road fuel and pay for accommodation, food, entry fees and bike repairs, but it is far far less expensive than any motorsport I know and can be cheaper than ferrying a car load of kids to football sessions every week, which can quickly bankrupt the unwary and ill advised in pursuit of that end of season glory. I have met some extremely wealthy people involved in motorsport who actually ran on a budget and won because they had talent and experience not expensive equipment. The same applies to mountain biking as sport.
I am mixed race ( part african american) although on the paler side and there is a massive void in ethnic participation across most wheeled sport. It is due to culture and culture fashions. All it takes is one person to be encouraged to join in or to win races and more will find the confidence to follow suit. It happened with cricket, tennis, football and formula one but it took years to shake down the poor image of sport being only for people with money and of a distinctively light skin tone. It only takes one person or a club to sponsor the kid with talent. As a child it was damn hard being a bit ethnically challenged and having little money to compete. I had a bit of talent with horses and the right contacts but just wasn't plummy enough to be totally accepted into some circles without some sort of confidence sapping knock. I don't see much of any ethnic challenge with mountain biking other than amongst men and women of other cultures who are forbidden from such pursuits.
I think we all need to be more accepting to all types of two wheeled people we meet on our much loved trails and spread the word that our woody pursuit is great for anyone to have a go at. The more people involved from all backgrounds, the better chance we all have of seeing more trails built and more new mtb clubs/groups/friendships initiated to help keep the variety alive.
Personally I don't think there are enough local MTB groups and local trails. I live close to the som/devon border and am amazed that my nearest suitable group and complete forest trail is Exeter. I am happy to ride regular around the Quantocks and the Blackdowns, but many new people will only get involved in the same way they use gym membership, for the club, social and encouragement in a safe happy group. Especially women. Go to any trail centre and you have accessibility for all and a big sport club style environment at a cost. Go to the local woods and we may get to practice our dark art of trail cheekiness in secret bliss but I don't think it encourages other people to have a go as we are often rarely noticed.
We need more people to get out and ride on a budget, I think that is the key to full accessibility for everyone. The expense comes later, but only for people being silly and elitist over prices and fashion. I don't want a Lambo or Bently, just an affordable bike like most people.
Thanks spockrider, that's a very informative and interesting post. Lots of points to consider.
Some points I'd consider important are:
BUT only if you ignore the hype and big sell.
I think some people do alienate others who can't afford top end machines. There is perhaps too much focus on trends and fashion and not enough on practical needs for lower budget buyers who just want to get out and have a go at grinding a granny ring and hopping a few bumps downhill in the woods or ride the red trail at a trail centre.
If you want to race, well that's going to get very expensive if you need to use road fuel and pay for accommodation, food, entry fees and bike repairs,
On the economic side, there are suggestions as expressed here, that the 'industry' isn't making mountain biking more accessible, by concentrating on an affluent 'core market'. Deliberate or not, I think this is true to an extent, certainly that's the impression you'd get if you walked into a bike shop specialising in mountain bikes. The most expensive bikes more prominently displayed, the more expensive options of items stocked (tyres, shoes, helmets etc), display cabinets full of high end kit. And things like [i]"the bikes tested in the latest issue come in at an average of £4497.00"[/i] when the UK average price is a tenth of that, can't help promote mountain biking as accessible in terms of cost.
there is a massive void in ethnic participation across most wheeled sport... It only takes one person or a club to sponsor the kid with talent
So we have to ask, why isn't this happening more? How can we all help achieve greater integration and diversity? Some comments I've read on this forum alone suggest some folk might prefer mountain biking to remain exclusive, both economically and possibly socially and culturally. That's quite depressing.
Personally I don't think there are enough local MTB groups and local trails.
With mountain biking being a more 'rural' pursuit, and the vast majority of people living in large towns and cities, this is always going to be an issue I think. Then gain some might think there are already too many/the wrong 'type' of people out on the trails.
I think that's a misinterpretation or misguided perception, MTB isn't an old-money exclusive club, it's just f'ing about on bikes in the mud. Hard to be all exclusive doing something as daft as that )Some comments I've read on this forum alone suggest some folk might prefer mountain biking to remain exclusive, both economically and possibly socially and culturally. That's quite depressing.
And my experience of mags from the trade/test bike supply side of things is that there's probably no meetings to decide their socio-economic pitch. They may plan tests in advance, some do 6-12 months ahead, others seem to just test the most fun (often same as 'priciest') toys they can get their hands on in time for a deadline, ie like riders with a few more strings to pull. It all seems fairly loose to me. Some brands get a lot of bikes into tests - they have a lot of choice and a big demo fleet, usually a good ad budget too, it all goes together. Got a test coming up? Call the reliable suppliers of test bikes, ideally those that you can return dirty )
With mountain biking being a more 'rural' pursuit, and the vast majority of people living in large towns and cities, this is always going to be an issue I think. Then gain some might think there are already too many/the wrong 'type' of people out on the trails.
Very valid points but it depends on where we all draw the 'unsavoury' trail sharing line. Most of us don't want to share our trails with thieves with an eye on our bikes, are out to trash and leave litter. Some clearly do want trails to themselves and bikes that reflect their perceived status, some people are unhappy about the jeans wearing crew with no helmets and not a stitch of lycra between their knees. Most people who may look a bit unsavoury usually are OK and are less judgemental about the types of people they are likely to meet.
Mountain biking is a rural pursuit but there are plenty of people who find it hard to get access to decent trails who live in rural areas.
Personally I for one would like to see every county in the UK have accessible areas of forestry commission or private land with developed trails and free ride, DH and good skills areas for use for everyone and that includes the townies who need a refreshing break from brick walls and busy roads. From a rural perspective the powers that make the decisions only appear to have an interest in building city skate parks and allowing developed trail centres to flourish near city hubs, which means we all have to travel and use a lot of time and fuel to get to them.
You only have to look at a map of the Southwest to see why Haldon and Ashton Park gets busy and Bike Park wales is so popular. When trail centres get too busy you may as well spend the day in town as people start to get competitive over crowded spaces and other people slowing down their flow or strava times.
We need more trails in some areas, promotion of lower budget practical options, more free skills/taster training days (for all not just kids and their parents) and a better national working group of mountain bikers that represents everyone, from all backgrounds whatever their financial or personal status in life, without such a group the elitist high cost elements will likely turn people off mountain biking to the eventual demise of retailers that need to sell to future generations who will have less cash to spend than todays generation. I know there are organisations that represent us but they don't seem to be doing much to push our sport under the general publics noses.
As a lady looking for places to ride and other people to ride with I find that I have no suitable skills areas in my locality and absolutely no complete trails suitable to even persuade newbies to spend some hard cash and I can't see many of my friends and associates wanting to do illegal mud moving in the local woods. I actually find that far more depressing than not currently having a 4 grand bike 😥
jameso; I don't believe there's a deliberate move by the 'industry' to exclude any particular group/s, just that possibly those involved in mountain biking media are unable to identify other potential groups of participants, or aren't best equipped to work with other groups to expand participation. My own experience of the mountain biking 'media' is that it appears almost exclusively to comprise that very demographic which seems to be the most dominant within the sport. The media exists to help market and promote the sport as part of a wider industry; perhaps the industry as a whole is naive and a bit parochial. But the fact that a relatively expensive sport is relatively inaccessible to certain minority groups is surely an issue within greater society, not just mountain biking.
Very valid points but it depends on where we all draw the 'unsavoury' trail sharing line. Most of us don't want to share our trails with thieves with an eye on our bikes, are out to trash and leave litter. Some clearly do want trails to themselves and bikes that reflect their perceived status, some people are unhappy about the jeans wearing crew with no helmets and not a stitch of lycra between their knees. Most people who may look a bit unsavoury usually are OK and are less judgemental about the types of people they are likely to meet.
Certain walking/rambling 'types' can seem quite insular and elitist, and I'd imagine there may be a small minority of such types in mountain biking. But you get that in all sorts of activities. I have perceived a sense of 'we don't want other people enjoying [u]our[/u] trails' from some walking/rambling types I've met, and the same in a few mountain bikers too, sadly. But I tend to ignore such narrow-mindedness, as I'm sure anyone with any sense would. It does point towards a perceived sense of 'ownership' and 'entitlement' amongst some groups/individuals though. People can be quite territorial if they think they're being 'threatened' in any way.
As a lady looking for places to ride and other people to ride with I find that I have no suitable skills areas in my locality and absolutely no complete trails suitable to even persuade newbies to spend some hard cash and I can't see many of my friends and associates wanting to do illegal mud moving in the local woods. I actually find that far more depressing than not currently having a 4 grand bike
Now you're talking about creating trails, as opposed to using what's already there/organic development, which opens up a whole new field of discussion. Should be be creating more place to ride bikes? I'm not sure if that's the 'answer' personally, but an interesting perspective nonetheless.
[quote=njee20]Why must it seek to gain prominence? Why should we be introducing others to it?
Nobody's really answered this yet - plenty of people suggesting why mountain biking might be perceived as inaccessible and ways to change that, but no real commentary on why that would be a good thing.
FWIW, I ride solo about 50% of my rides and in the company of one other friend for the other 50%. I couldn't care less whether other people ride mountain bikes or not - it doesn't affect my enjoyment of it. Sure, more people means more purpose-built facilities like BPW, Antur, Swinley and so on, but if they weren't there I wouldn't ride any less.
It's all very well saying we need to get more people cycling, but I don't see why that matters to anyone but the industry that makes money from it?
I think it matters, because more people cycling = hopefully less people driving, better facilities for cyclists, a better environment and a healthier population.
As for a greater diversity; as with anything in life, things are improved when you have a broad mix of people involved in something. Music is the perfect example of this. Football has an almost universal appeal due largely to it's truly inclusive nature. I fail to see how cycling can't be improved by more people doing it.
I think it matters, because more people cycling = hopefully less people driving, better facilities for cyclists, a better environment and a healthier population.
I'd disagree with that on the grounds that if you build a "facility for cycling" in terms of [b]leisure[/b] (ie a velodrome, a closed circuit, a trail centre) you actually encourage MORE driving - people will drive their bikes to the facility, ride round (or race) for a few hours or a day, drive home which sort of fosters the exclusivity aspect in that you really need a car - yes it's possible to go to some trail centres by train but it's a pain in the arse compared to driving there!
If by "facility for cyclists" you mean better infrastructure generally - segregated cycle paths, secure/safe off-road tracks (eg converted railway lines), signposted routes then yes, you can encourage people to ride instead of drive but that's for utility cycling rather than leisure cycling (mostly)
[quote=cybicle]I think it matters, because more people cycling = hopefully less people driving, better facilities for cyclists, a better environment and a healthier population.
Ah, but you're talking about cycling in general as a mode of transport, not mountain biking as a recreational activity. Very different situation there entirely.
Cycling in and of itself is very accessible, and everyone knows it - a basic bike is very cheap, and you can ride a bike as transport in any clothes you like, the Dutch certainly do. The benefits to society as a whole of greater cycle usage as a form of transport are well-proven; less time off work sick through better general health, more money put into funding cycling infrastructure, less cars on the roads, and so on - all of which benefit those who currently use a bike as transport.
What are the tangible benefits to people who already mountain bike as a leisure activity of more people getting involved?
I'd disagree with that on the grounds that if you build a "facility for cycling" in terms of leisure (ie a velodrome, a closed circuit, a trail centre) you actually encourage MORE driving
Not necessarily. I don't see anyone driving to the bmx tracks near me. And the new Olympic velodrome in London has fantastic public transport links. And trail centres built nearer to urban areas would be more accessible by bike. There are problems, but there are also solutions.
Ah, but you're talking about cycling in general as a mode of transport, not mountain biking as a recreational activity.
I'm not, I'm talking about cycling as a whole here. Of which mountain biking is a part.
What are the tangible benefits to people who already mountain bike as a leisure activity of more people getting involved?
Larger numbers would lead to greater need for access. English access laws are woefully outdated and restrictive. Greater numbers of participants would provide a larger pool from which to draw potential sporting talent. Larger numbers of people wishing to travel to mountain biking areas would call for better facilities for travelling, such as improved transport provision. A far greater percentage of the Dutch population cycles regularly, and facilities, as well as consideration for cyclists are much better there.
Would you argue that [i]less[/i] participation is better for cycling/mountain biking?
Actually, it has been shown in the US that greater numbers of mountain bikers has, in the higher population density areas (like the UK), let to greater restrictions and reduced access. If you have an area that has no official mountain bike trails, if there are only a few mountain bikers then they can pretty much go where they like; if you suddenly get hundreds turning up then the areas available to them will get restricted - that seems to be how it goes.
Improved transport provision? Can you clarify that please?
Yes, I believe I made the point about the Dutch, but that's cycling, not mountain biking. The thread is about mountain biking specifically, not cycling in general.
I still don't see why mountain biking must be seen to be accessible?
More people mountain biking would not benefit me personally, no, so I'm quite ambivalent. I don't care if anyone else rides a mountain bike or not. In fact, the recent swell in numbers simply seems to mean a greater number of thefts of high-end bikes as they are now more of a target, and greater numbers of people on the trails leading to less of a feeling of getting away from the world (which is mostly why I ride offroad as opposed to on the road). Why are either of those good things?
Actually, it has been shown in the US that greater numbers of mountain bikers has, in the higher population density areas (like the UK), let to greater restrictions and reduced access.
Got any info on that? Bear in mind that the UK isn't the USA; Scotland and Wales already have better access than England, as do many other European countries, and this hasn't led to greater restrictions, more that people can spread out more and use more trails.
Improved transport provision? Can you clarify that please?
Sure; transport provision is based on need, current and predicted. More cars = more roads being built. More people needing/wanting to access other areas with bikes would therefore surely lead to increased need for transport, which means more revenue for transport providers and the treasury. This is already happening in urban areas; more cyclists has led to increased cycling provision, and an improvement (albeit not great) in provision for cyclists on public transport.
The thread is about mountain biking specifically, not cycling in general.
Mountain biking is part of a greater cycling whole.
I still don't see why mountain biking must be seen to be accessible?
So you'd prefer accessibility to remain as it is, or be less accessible even? Care to expand on that? So because you can't see a benefit to you personally, you don't believe anything should change? Isn't that a somewhat blinkered and selfish attitude to have (it's fine, you're entitled to think as you wish)? Considering that other contributors to this thread believe there should be [i]greater[/i] accessibility.
greater numbers of people on the trails leading to less of a feeling of getting away from the world (which is mostly why I ride offroad as opposed to on the road).
What makes you more entitled to enjoy mountain biking than others?
maybe it's a bit like fell running...
if you're the kind of berk who'll enjoy hacking around in the mud and cold, you'll probably end up in a fell-race / on a mountain bike sooner or later anyway, no matter how much (or little) encouragement you recieve (or don't).
I think we need to define a few things:
Cycling as a method of transport is very accessible, and I would argue that this is almost universally known, and there seems to be no kind of demographic restriction that I know of. Walk round any major urban area and you will see people from all different ethnicities, both sexes, and from bankers to street cleaners using bikes as transport. An increase in people using bikes as transport generally leads to an increase in funding in populated areas for dedicated cycle lanes, greater provision and awareness of cyclists amongst motorised traffic, and so on. This is a Good Thing.
Cycling as a recreational/leisure activity is very separate from this, especially mountain biking, and I still don't see why it needs to promote itself as especially accessible? The benefits to the general population as a whole come from increased [i]general[/i] cycle use, as opposed to specifically participating in it as a leisure activity.
Agreed there. The majority of the bike industry is blokes 30-50 making toys for people like themselves or where they see the mass market. Product genres and marketing/media categorization are a bit of a circular thing and make it hard for many riders to see beyond variations on a narrow range of themes. But then we're onto the points above about cycling in general rather that the 'sport' of MTB. And I'll start sounding like Grant Peterson (or a less informed or witty version of).the mountain biking 'media' is that it appears almost exclusively to comprise that very demographic which seems to be the most dominant within the sport.
Edit to add, get people into bikes via MTB and they may see cyclists on the road/in town differently or start using bikes as transport too, so I see it as all linked to some extent.
And the new Olympic velodrome in London has fantastic public transport links
Just a shame you can't take bikes on most of them!
Cycling as a method of transport is very accessible, and I would argue that this is almost universally known, and there seems to be no kind of demographic restriction that I know of. Walk round any major urban area and you will see people from all different ethnicities, both sexes, and from bankers to street cleaners using bikes as transport. An increase in people using bikes as transport generally leads to an increase in funding in populated areas for dedicated cycle lanes, greater provision and awareness of cyclists amongst motorised traffic, and so on. This is a Good Thing.Cycling as a recreational/leisure activity is very separate from this, especially mountain biking, and I still don't see why it needs to promote itself as especially accessible? The benefits to the general population as a whole come from increased general cycle use, as opposed to specifically participating in it as a leisure activity.
This was my point. I see few benefits from more people taking up mountain biking. The vast majority will drive to trails, so the roads and the trails are busier, the public perception of cyclists gets degraded in many circumstances because of the volume of people getting in their way (see Surrey residents example), whilst the actual provision for these people changes very slightly (again, Surrey hills example).
I love riding around my locale, but it wouldn't be improved by more people doing it. Not one iota!
Utility cycling, absolutely, cycle superhighways - great, Sky Ride/Go Ride events, brilliant, all for that sort of thing. But that's not mountain biking.
This thread must have the longest average post length of any I've seen!
[b]njee[/b], we seem to have the almost identical view. Wonder why we seem to be the only ones?
Regards to my earlier comments about reduced access and increased restrictions coming with more mountain bikers, see most of California as an example (read about it on the MTBR forums, particularly the areas around Marin County), Vancouver's North Shore area - hell, even Swinley Forest can fall under that umbrella.
[s]most[/s] many of the trails i ride would benefit from [i]more[/i] traffic - it'd keep the foliage back...
[quoteNow you're talking about creating trails, as opposed to using what's already there/organic development, which opens up a whole new field of discussion. Should be be creating more place to ride bikes?
Yes, in that there are many areas that are used by off road cyclists which could be better utilised. example, I have acres of playground in my area and there's a large population of would be, could be mountain bikers that don't even know that you can actually ride the bridleways and forest tracks. I might see 1 or 2 horse riders and some signage that says bridleway or byeway but how many people see a cycle sign. Bridle still implies horses not cyclists.
When I started mountain biking I did a lot of research into local accessible areas and what I found was lacking. Interestingly horse riders are looking for clearly defined loop rides too so horse riders and mountain bikers are actually sharing a common interest in a lot of respects.
Walkers and ramblers can be elitist and down right intimidating if there are enough of them but there are rumblings in the woods against them from some woodland authorities because they leave dog mess behind. If dog owning walkers are becoming an issue then it seems to be a golden opportunity to me, for owners to invite more cyclists into the area. It is a contentious issue but there will come a point where landowners will be welcoming us as we don't chase animals and leave mess bags. It also opens a question which is IF more trails were signed and linked better, would some of those ramblers or walkers take up mountain biking? I honestly think some would have a go if those bridleways were clearly marked to say we could use them. There is a golden world of great opportunity out in those woods, on the hills and down the lane which some public clarity would go a long way to helping avoid conflicts between users, especially the walkers who use all paths and stick to the rules of the signage like clay to a tyre when issues arise. How many signs do I see for cyclists across the Quantocks? None! The lack of indicates to other users that we are not allowed to cycle off road, when we can and it does nothing to encourage local people and visitors to get up there and ride which has an effect on local bike retailers who need the sales and local tourism which communities need.
Shared clearly marked trails encourage other users to be less territorial, so yes again we need more trails, with clear grading indicators marked on posts. The industry needs to sell bikes but people won't upgrade their machines or buy for their families if they can't find some nice single track and a few jumps outside of the confines of the local skate/bmx park, which get 'owned' territorially by the local kids. That same sense of ownership soon transfers to trails that don't mark shared access. If a trail is illegal then MTBers should expect to initiate sort of conflict they won't like at some point.
I personally think that the higher ranks of the MTB community needs to step back a bit and remember that most people start riding with a bimble amongst mates or family. The majority do not take up DH or Cyclocross or XC as a serious sport until they have learnt some skills. We all learn skills by riding with and watching others and if we want to share trails with good riders with great ability we all need to share the space and have more space to share. No one is going to go out and buy that expensive bike if they are not welcome on those trails and that really is no good for sales at the top end.
The Bike industry as a whole does cater for all abilities and financial levels but being elitist and territorial switches off the interest of people who might have taken up the sport and stayed with it.
I work in the vehicle industry where elitism has become a bit of a yawn and all those top end sales gimmicks have cost people so much money in theft and maintenance they wish they'd bought an old banger. The MTB industry has gone the same route and will inadvertently price some people out of some activities from fear of not having the latest high tech equipment. At base level newbies will be scared off the trails because they don't match up to an ill defined standard set by those who just push the top end fashions. None of it is very encouraging to newbies or riders coming back into cycling and not good for the industry at any level on and off the trails.
The better we share and promote our MTB activities with other people, the less hold the elitist, possessive attitudes will have over those trails.
Diversity comes with sharing, teaching and learning and encouragement from other people. If people want to ride or walk in solitude that's up to them but the vast majority enjoy the nod or hello of other people they meet. If we didn't we would all hang up our bikes and walkers would hang up their boots.
It's only a minority that won't accept others and fears are often based on one singular incident, not conflict every time they walk or ride in the country. It's a fact often overlooked.
A lot of what is getting discussed here in terms of improving accessibility just sounds to me like hand-holding and making things easier for people who can't be bothered to find out for themselves. If I decide to take up a sport or activity because it looks interesting, I expect to have to put some effort into doing some research into it, not simply have everything spoon-fed to me. Why does mountain biking have to be different?
Just a shame you can't take bikes on most of them!
Bicycles are permitted (with certain conditions) on the Central Line (from Leyton eastwards), the Jubilee Line, the DLR and most trains through Stratford station. It's only the Central Line from Stratford westwards and buses you can't take bikes on. So, I'd say it has fantastic public transport links compared to a lot of other venues, and certainly to most other cycle venues.
I see few benefits from more people taking up mountain biking
Even though several have already been suggested?
The vast majority will drive to trails
Really? Do you have any evidence to suggest this? Do most mountain bikers already mainly drive to get to their trails?
I love riding around my locale, but it wouldn't be improved by more people doing it. Not one iota!
So, it's ok that you do it, but not for newcomers? Would you be willing to stop riding those trails in order to allow others to do so?
I personally think that the higher ranks of the MTB community needs to step back a bit and remember that most people start riding with a bimble amongst mates or family. The majority do not take up DH or Cyclocross or XC as a serious sport until they have learnt some skills. We all learn skills by riding with and watching others and if we want to share trails with good riders with great ability we all need to share the space and have more space to share.
I think that's one of the best comments so far. I got into mountain biking through being invited to come on rides by others. I imagine many others started off this way too.
njee, we seem to have the almost identical view. Wonder why we seem to be the only ones?
If you want my personal opinion, I think it's because both of you have an elitist and exclusive attitude towards mountain biking. You both seem to think it's ok for you to ride, but don't welcome the idea of others joining in. That strikes me as somewhat selfish if you don't mind me saying. And it's this very attitude which some people might see as a barrier to them participating. Would you prefer a system whereby you need to be a member of a small and exclusive club, and ride only on designated trails on private land? Because surely if you're going to ride in areas with general public access, then you're going to have to share. I hear your concerns about mountain biking becoming 'too popular', and I do think this is an issue which has to be taken into consideration, in terms of helping minimising/preventing environmental damage.
A lot of what is getting discussed here in terms of improving accessibility just sounds to me like hand-holding and making things easier for people who can't be bothered to find out for themselves
Well, I for one am grateful for such 'hand holding' as you put it, although I will make every effort to find information on places to ride. It's the efforts of the wider mountain biking 'community' that I've benefitted from, which i see as a very positive thing.
If I decide to take up a sport or activity because it looks interesting, I expect to have to put some effort into doing some research into it, not simply have everything spoon-fed to me.
But surely you will be reliant upon the efforts of others to provide you with information, equipment and resources, no?
Diversity comes with sharing, teaching and learning and encouragement from other people. If people want to ride or walk in solitude that's up to them but the vast majority enjoy the nod or hello of other people they meet. If we didn't we would all hang up our bikes and walkers would hang up their boots.
It's only a minority that won't accept others and fears are often based on one singular incident, not conflict every time they walk or ride in the country. It's a fact often overlooked.
Word. 8)
Not necessarily. I don't see anyone driving to the bmx tracks near me. And the new Olympic velodrome in London has fantastic public transport links. And trail centres built nearer to urban areas would be more accessible by bike. There are problems, but there are also solutions.
Going off topic slightly but at Manchester they've run surveys for years on all sorts of aspects of the people using the facilities (indoor velodrome, indoor BMX track plus other non-biking stuff - badminton, Wattbike etc) and the results are consistent in that about 90% of people coming to the facility to take part in track or BMX (as opposed to watching an event) drive there.
Public transport isn't bad - there are tram and bus stops right by it and a station about a mile away.
Really? Do you have any evidence to suggest this? Do most mountain bikers already mainly drive to get to their trails?
Anecdotal evidence based on my own experiences over the last 20 years I've been MTBing...
Unless I'm riding from the door, I will always drive and so will most other people that I know. About the only exception would be using the train that goes from Manchester to Sheffield - I've trained it out into the Peak and ridden home a few times but if I was meeting friends in Hope or Edale, I'd drive simply to fit in the kit. Toolbox, pump, clothes for afterwards etc etc. Certainly if I wanted to go biking in the Lakes, Dales, Wales etc, I'd drive from here, wouldn't even consider public transport.
But surely you will be reliant upon the efforts of others to provide you with information, equipment and resources, no?
This is an interesting one and it's changed completely in the last 2 decades thanks to the internet and then to social media.
I got into MTBing through a mate at school (although I'd always had a bike and loved riding). So we went "MTBing" together - round the local woods or whatever and I got all the information I needed from maagzines (MBUK) and from my local cycle club who, fortunately, had a couple of very willing volunteers who took local rides out, drove people to races or events (or just further afield for rides) and did what some are terming hand-holding.
Nowadays, I don't *need* any of that - I can look online for routes, rides, people to ride with, I can instantly find details of a trail centre, book a hotel online, drive up there and ride without ever actually needing to talk to or meet anyone so in that sense it's more accessible than ever. Where it's not accessible is what the club aspect used to provide to me - that sense of community and hand holding and education and support and ideas for going places and doing things. Are people relying too much on online interaction rather than the real thing? Is there a lack of accessibility because people are more nervous about "the great outdoors" now? Not sure...
I struggle with long sentences but it seems to me that some of you are making it unnecessarily complicated!
I went out for a ride today in the overcrowded Southern part of the country and didn't see one person on the trails.
Sometimes, just sometimes, you can't always hold peoples hands. 😐
Edit: I just decided that I fancied getting a bike, after all my own kids had enjoyed bikes for years. Went out on my own into the countryside and, yes, I am a woman and, no, it didn't stop me.
I can look back on around 15 years of exploring the countryside, seen some fantastic places and shared some of my routes with folk on here. It's really not difficult. 🙂
I went out for a ride today in the overcrowded Southern part of the country and didn't see one person on the trails.
That's because all the proper MTBers were at WORK.
That thing they have to do to afford the £5000 MTBs they're told they need to venture further than the cafe at Peaslake.
And all the non-MTBers were too busy being scared about the great outdoors (or ignorant of its existence) to get there.
😉
You naughty man crazy-legs. 😀
Can I also say that njee makes a good point by asking why we should introduce it to others.
Really? Do you have any evidence to suggest this? Do most mountain bikers already mainly drive to get to their trails?
No peer reviewed PhD theses I'm afraid. There's plenty of anecdotal evidence. Look at Strava - how many MTB rides start from anywhere other than the main car parks at a location - very few.
So, it's ok that you do it, but not for newcomers? Would you be willing to stop riding those trails in order to allow others to do so?
You love misquoting me to suit your point don't you? I said it wouldn't improve it, not that I don't welcome it. I don't really drive to the trails anyway. I sometimes drive a bit closer, but not to the trails themselves - I get a better ride, and avoid getting caught up with everyone else who does drive to the trails.
No I wouldn't be prepared to stop riding local trails solely so other people can, well done for your philanthropy. No problem with you calling me selfish, probably am. I will nurture new riders - two friends have got into riding in the last year and I've offered both advice, been riding with them etc, but I really struggle with seeing any environmental benefit to folk taking up mountain biking, and you've yet to offer anything whatsoever.
The majority do not take up DH or Cyclocross or XC as a serious sport [s]until they have learnt some skills.[/s] at all, ever.
FTFY
I reckon the majority are quite happy going for rambles on bikes. That's as accessible as you need it to be I suppose.
[quote two friends have got into riding in the last year and I've offered both advice, been riding with them etc, but I really struggle with seeing any environmental benefit to folk taking up mountain biking
Surely the more people who ride, the better the chances of keeping and gaining more access to MTBers. The benefits of new facilities comes with a positive environmental trade off as new trail hubs and users allow environmentally sensitive areas to be left for the wildlife and people wanting their solitary pursuits.
Also creating used trails (with permissions) opens wildlife corridors. If people don't use the countryside, large areas soon become overgrown and covered in debris, bramble and invasive weeds like knotweed. That is no good for walkers, riders or the wildlife and becomes expensive to keep clearing. Good footfall and tyres on tracks helps to keep areas open to all. Encouraging more people to take up MTB leisure also helps reduce the damage done by motorbikes and scramblers ridden by people, who like us, enjoy riding on two wheels, but who make a hell of a lot of noise. I think local authorities and inhabitants would much prefer MTBers to use those green areas as we are kinder to the environment and pose less problems to wildlife.
So more riders means more 'facilities' to ride - but that means we can leave sensitive areas alone (which I'm for). So you're saying more riders = less space to ride? Not convinced...
Know what you're getting at though.
Mountain biking as practised by STWers is almost totally dependent on car use. There are a few folk fortunate enough to be able to ride from the door, but the success of Llandegla, Lee Quarry, Gisburn, all the Stanes and other 'centres' that escape me, plus the Lakes, the Peak, name your honey pot are all places that are driven to.
The 'environmental' benefit?