A sign that says “no bicycling” is generally put there for exactly one reason:
- “We were here first.”
Mountain biking is newer to trail systems than hiking, dog walking, or horse riding is. The other user groups don’t like the fact that “someone else” is using “their” trails (ignoring the fact that bikers may also be hikers or equestrians). In places where mountain biking was prevalent before it was well-organized, the problem is worse. In Marin County, the home of mountain biking, there’s virtually no legal singletrack, and there are highly established anti-bike user groups with lots of money and time to fight any effort to increase bike access to trails.
Mountain bike groups have fought this dynamic for many years, and have tried a number of different tactics. One has been to commission scientific studies of the impacts of mountain biking. It turns out that the trail impact of bikes is similar in magnitude to the trail impact of hikers, and both of those have far less impact than equestrians. Another has been to build a network of volunteers who help with trail construction and maintenance. In any locale where mountain biking is allowed, mountain bikers provide the vast majority of the volunteer labor required to maintain those trails. So as a general rule, mountain bike trails are in better shape than hiker-only or hiker/equestrian trails.
But in many districts, those efforts have gotten bikers nowhere. Opponents fall back on the “trail conflict” issue; that bikes allegedly cause problems for hikers, dogs, and equestrians. Nowhere has it been shown that bike/hiker conflicts are any more significant than hiker/equestrian conflicts or hiker/dog conflicts. Everyone would like to have the trails to themselves, but that’s not the reality. One tactic IMBA has suggested (and implemented in a few places) is alternating-day access; bikes can use the trails on even days, people who don’t want to be with bikes can use them on odd days. In most districts this has been rejected: why? “We were here first.”
This has resulted in a situation where, in a place like the East Bay, surveys show that over 20% of park users are bikers (and less than 5% are equestrians), yet bikes are banned from 80-90% of the trails.
The system is inequitable and stacked against bikes. Playing nice (and in fact, contributing more to trail upkeep than any other user group) has gotten bikers nowhere for 25 years. So many of them poach trails which should be open to bikes, but aren’t.
Poaching trails is an offense at a level similar to walking an off-leash dog in a park where they’re supposed to be on leash. Only an asshole will give you a hard time about it, but you’d better be sure you’re not causing problems for anyone else. Don’t do it when trails are busy, be respectful of other users, and don’t give people an excuse to complain about you.
In related news, Mike Vandeman, a long-time Bay Area anti-mountain-bike nut, who started stalking me after he ran into a group of us on the trails (he figured out where I work and showed up at my office twice to complain to my boss that he’d seen me riding a unicycle on the trails), was recently arrested for two counts of assault and one of vandalism, after he hit a mountain biker with a saw and punctured the tire of another one. His trial is set for tomorrow.
Don’t look for logic in opposition to cycles on trails; there isn’t any. If 100% of the cycle population started following 100% of the rules starting tomorrow, nothing at all would change. It’s about ownership and politics.
The troglodytes are losing political power as they die off, and as more schools develop mountain biking programs for kids. That puts parents in the position of being advocates for their kids, which increases the political pull of the mountain bikes. Maybe 20 years from now we’ll have more realistic regulations; if we do, it will not have anything to do with whether people poached trails in 2010.
Bottom line: If you poach trails, don’t be an idiot about it.