Danny MacAskill on the Cuillin - Irresponsible?

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 timreid 04 Oct 2014
I love biking. I think Danny MacAskill is amazing and the recent film of him on and around the Cuillin is a really impressive bit of film-making.

BUT: I also love Scotland's most spectacular mountain ridges, and I'm not convinced that such precious and fragile geological features are places for biking. A bike causes far more erosion than a pair of feet, and if too many people try to emulate their heroes then it could cause real problems, not only for the geology but also for the reputation of biking in the eyes of walkers, climbers, conservationists and those responsible for path maintenance etc.

Where the video has been posted on social media I've already seen plenty of comments such as 'Yeah, let's get the bikes out there' or 'One day this'll be me'. Is this a good thing? Will there soon be extra long queues at the base of the In Pin with people carrying bikes desperate to replicate Danny's pose for their Facebook profile picture? (It's a marvellous shot, but ultimately just a vanity shot that has nothing to do with biking).

I can't find any mention of the ethics of this film on Danny's website or elsewhere, but please point me in the right direction if this exists. And perhaps these issues will be mentioned in the BBC programme about it next week. In the meantime I'd really like to hear other opinions on what I've said (and don't just waste time calling me a boring square/spoilsport).
 allanscott 04 Oct 2014
In reply to timreid:

Just seems bonkers to me though I will watch the programme with interest. If you ask, I'd say he's lucky to be alive rattling along the ridge at speed! Little enough margin for error for walkers/scramblers far less bikers!
 Frank4short 04 Oct 2014
In reply to timreid:
> BUT: I also love Scotland's most spectacular mountain ridges, and I'm not convinced that such precious and fragile geological features are places for biking. A bike causes far more erosion than a pair of feet, and if too many people try to emulate their heroes then it could cause real problems, not only for the geology but also for the reputation of biking in the eyes of walkers, climbers, conservationists and those responsible for path maintenance etc.

In all but boggy/muddy conditions that's a questionable assertion. Anyway in reality the difficulty and danger involved in doing this would deter all but a tiny tiny proportion of the people talking about actually doing it. Further to that how many tens of thousands of people walk/scramble/climb the cuillin ridge every years? Do you really believe that maybe a hundred cyclists a year (if even) will make a significant difference compared with all of the foot traffic it takes? If you really do, I believe you're misguided in your thoughts.

> Where the video has been posted on social media I've already seen plenty of comments such as 'Yeah, let's get the bikes out there' or 'One day this'll be me'. Is this a good thing? Will there soon be extra long queues at the base of the In Pin with people carrying bikes desperate to replicate Danny's pose for their Facebook profile picture? (It's a marvellous shot, but ultimately just a vanity shot that has nothing to do with biking).

As above, no i somehow seriously doubt there'll be many takers on bikes it's just too difficult. In saying all of that had you dedicated this thread to the idea that inexperienced cyclists who aren't skillful enough to take on a challenge like this (all but a tiny minority) end up trying it anyway and getting themselves in a lot of trouble. You might possibly have had a point but only time will prove this.

Anyway in summation, no i believe you're mistaken and even if i'm incorrect and there are influx of bikers there why should the mountain be the preserve of people on foot only? As i don't believe the argument that in most places most of the time mtbers are significantly worse from an errossion perspective than people on foot. This is especially true when you take into account the vastly larger numbers of people on foot compared with mtbers in all but a few wild spots.
Post edited at 11:41
 Bob 04 Oct 2014
In reply to timreid:

There's not many "Ooh I'll have to do that" style comments on the thread about this on singletrackworld - http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/danny-macaskill-rides-the-cuillin-r... (other biking forums might be different). In fact there's one lamenting his skidding on a path.

The skills of riders like Danny MacAskill, Chris Akrigg and Martyn Ashton are so far in advance of what the majority of cyclists are capable of that I don't think many are likely to try and emulate him. There's also a lot of "It's been done so why bother" type attitude so if someone did try to emulate him it wouldn't get much attention.

My commute takes me past a couple of locations used in Road Bike party 2, I've yet to see anyone trying to repeat those tricks which are just yards from a road so I can't see many youths turning up at Glen Brittle prepared to push and carry their bikes up to the Inn Pinn, it's just too much like hard work when they can head to Innerleithin and get on the uplift service. (Another of the RBP2 locations is next to my wife's place of work and there have been no reports of any repeat attempts)

Most MTB riders spend their time at trail centres, the ones who head out to the hills tend to be the older riders who are likely to have a bit more nous about them. The erosion caused by mountain bikers is dwarfed by the erosion caused by walkers (I'm in both camps so I'm partly to blame whatever). One of the "classic" MTB rides is Sligachan to Camusunary, it appears in guidebooks and regularly in magazines. Looking at Strava (http://app.strava.com/segments/1396480) just 59 people have logged it, one of the segments going in the opposite direction has just 97 logs. Now not every uses Strava and it's mainly a road thing but if we say that 1 in 10 use it then there have been roughly 1500 bikers along that track over several years. Compare this with 700 rides for the descent of Walna Scar and nearly 21000 for a segment at Gisburn Forest.

There'll always be those who get aggrieved at anyone doing anything they don't 100% agree with but they are in the minority by a long way. A few weeks ago I rode to the top of a couple of Lakes fells, none of the walkers I met were in the least bit bothered despite me not being on a legal bridleway, though whether they knew that I don't know. I suspect that attitude might be different if there were huge numbers of mountain bikers out on the footpaths but there aren't.
 MischaHY 04 Oct 2014
In reply to timreid:

>A bike causes far more erosion than a pair of feet

A completely inaccurate assertion, unless the ground is so boggy that it is practically unrideable anyway. Danny is the exception, not the rule, and his videos are inspiring a generation of riders.

Sometimes I think people will try and cause a fuss about anything.
 Siward 04 Oct 2014
In reply to timreid:
Tend to agree with the responses to this thread, namely that it isn't a major problem.

However I cannot but help feel that bikes on the hills- on small pathways and sketchy tracks, are not a good thing. To me they are just out of place. Certainly they're great for access along decent tracks but in certain places- I'm thinking wet paths traversing steep hillsides they slice away turf like butter.

As for the 'why should the mountain be the preserve of people on foot only?' point, then why not simply have quad bikes and argocats everywhere and have done with it?

Suspect I'm fighting a losing battle in these 'extreme sports' days.
Post edited at 12:13
 Bob 04 Oct 2014
In reply to Siward:

There are one or two places where mountain bikers have caused erosion, Cut Gate in the Peak District is one. It's the usual "That's too boggy, i'll move to the side" scenario that happens with walkers as well, this is on a legal bridleway BTW.

Of course you get in to the "What's a decent track" argument: what some regard as unrideable is fine for others and if you don't mountain bike a lot then it's hard to differentiate what's a good track and what isn't. The estate vehicle tracks in Scotland are fine for getting the distance done but they aren't particularly pleasant whereas the stalkers tracks are just as good for biking on but more interesting.

I can't think of a "wet path traversing a steep hillside" that would be either bikeable or particularly nice to bike along. There's continuing discussion amongst mountain bikers as to what's a good track to ride and those are the type that get dismissed as not being worth it. So there's definitely some self-regulation going on.

Do you have an example of a path being cut up by mountain bikers?
 itsThere 04 Oct 2014
In reply to Siward:
To be fair a bike is different because it is human power

http://www.pinkbike.com/news/chris-akrigg-goes-fat-video-2014.html
Post edited at 14:16
 Andrew Smith 04 Oct 2014
In reply to timreid: A bike may cause more damage than a pair of feet. But I think we've gone beyond that hypocrisy, considering most scraps of rock in the UK have had years of being trashed by climbers and walkers.

If we were all that concerned about the environment, we wouldn't be using it full stop.


 wintertree 04 Oct 2014
In reply to timreid:

I thought the only really questionable bit was bouncing the bike of someone else's wire mesh fence! Damaging someone else's fence is not cool. I suppose they're built to cope with deer running into them, probably a comparable impact? I think I can find it in me to get over that, given the frankly incredible move it featured as a part of.

If people taking inspiration from the video worries you, you might worry more about the stress they'll put on mountain rescue than on the erosion they'll cause...
 aldo56 04 Oct 2014
In reply to timreid:

I'm heading up to Skye now in a van to pick up the expensive bikes of all the boys who've been killed trying to emulate Danny.
 Ciro 04 Oct 2014
In reply to wintertree:

That trick actually made me laugh out loud in sheer disbelief.

I've yet to see a bicycle cause the sort of scarring of the rock that crampons do, or torque blocks off a wall the way an ice axe head can, so as with most on this thread I would find it pretty hypocritical for us to complain about bikers using the mountains.
T_Mac 04 Oct 2014
In reply to timreid:

Pretty much all of the Red Bull Rampage footage available is of guys tearing down ridiculously steep and inaccessible slopes in a way that should be impossible on a bike and guess what, they pay Danny's wage! I have my doubts about the fact that Danny's stuff will no doubt put ideas into some peoples heads but tbh, thats just natural selection. The pro's will always be pushing the envelope, thats what they get the cheque for.
 Mr Messy 04 Oct 2014
In reply to timreid:

Well done to a local Skye lad. Amazing skills, best in world. Have a look at his other films. He is the E11 of the biking world.
 jaggy bunnet 04 Oct 2014
In reply to timreid:
Do you have any idea how ridiculous your post is ?
A wheel exerts less pressure on the ground because it ROLLS over whatever the surface may be, granted it will leave a trough through bog but a lot less erosion than a boot will ever do!
AND us bikers stay on trails and ride through puddles while punters walking will walk to side of a puddle thus widening it causing more damage.
If i had the nuts and determination of Danny Mac i'd be up there like a shot emulating him, the hills belong to all of us, Danny happens to be gifted enough he can ride stuff we cant dream of,showing the beauty and grandure of his homeland into the bargain to the world only makes it even more comendable.
By the way, mountaineers have been using pedal power for years to access the hills, nothing new there. So wind yer neck in and show the guy some respect.
 Timmd 04 Oct 2014
In reply to wintertree:
> I thought the only really questionable bit was bouncing the bike of someone else's wire mesh fence! Damaging someone else's fence is not cool. I suppose they're built to cope with deer running into them, probably a comparable impact? I think I can find it in me to get over that, given the frankly incredible move it featured as a part of.

> If people taking inspiration from the video worries you, you might worry more about the stress they'll put on mountain rescue than on the erosion they'll cause...

I agree with the whole post. Having erected fences like that as part of a team, I'm just glad the bit he bounced off was well constructed, or it could have been a tangle. The 'boingy' impact from him cycling into it wouldn't do any harm at all if it's a sound fence (I think). It's rot and rust and things which would kill the fence in the end. That one trick makes me want to practice. ()
Post edited at 20:02
 Skol 04 Oct 2014
In reply to timreid:

I can't stop watching the film. It's unbelievable! Forget the climbing exploits that have been achieved on the ridge, he is king of the hills at the moment.
I can't see too many copying that!
Lusk 04 Oct 2014
In reply to jaggy bunnet:

A wheel exerts less pressure on the ground because it ROLLS over whatever the surface may be, granted it will leave a trough through bog but a lot less erosion than a boot will ever do!



Now that's not strictly true, what about the horizontal force on the ground from the back wheel when you're peddaling away?

Then you've got the damage you cause by braking and swerving away whilst descending.

One bike creates considerably more damage than one pair of boots.
 Timmd 04 Oct 2014
In reply to Lusk:

> One bike creates considerably more damage than one pair of boots.

That's true, there's science/figures around to back it up.

KevinD 04 Oct 2014
In reply to Timmd:

> I agree with the whole post. Having erected fences like that as part of a team, I'm just glad the bit he bounced off was well constructed, or it could have been a tangle.

I am guessing they both asked for permission and then made sure it was suitable. Seems a bit of coincidence that the bit he hit had additional supports on it.
 JLS 04 Oct 2014
In reply to timreid:

I think the reality of the difficulties of undertaking cycling along parts of the ridge will deter all but a few individuals that are in for a big disappointment when they discover how little of the ridge is actually rideable.
 Rick Graham 04 Oct 2014
In reply to dissonance:

> I am guessing they both asked for permission and then made sure it was suitable. Seems a bit of coincidence that the bit he hit had additional supports on it.

I bet the stunts and filming were a bit more staged and practised than a true on sight, to use a climbing term.

Collies Ledge would not be a difficult cycle on a man made trail, just fatal if you blow it. As it happens I mentioned cycling it when walking along it in 2003.

Amazing skill and control, though I do have reservations about soloing for publicity and sponsors.

What impresses me most, is finding the normal route on the Inn Pinn free of crowds.
 Rick Graham 04 Oct 2014
In reply to Lusk:

> A wheel exerts less pressure on the ground because it ROLLS over whatever the surface may be, granted it will leave a trough through bog but a lot less erosion than a boot will ever do!

> Now that's not strictly true, what about the horizontal force on the ground from the back wheel when you're peddaling away?

> Then you've got the damage you cause by braking and swerving away whilst descending.


> One bike creates considerably more damage than one pair of boots.




The hills are for everybody.
 Timmd 04 Oct 2014
In reply to dissonance:

> I am guessing they both asked for permission and then made sure it was suitable. Seems a bit of coincidence that the bit he hit had additional supports on it.

I'd missed those bits of wood.
KevinD 04 Oct 2014
In reply to Rick Graham:

> I bet the stunts and filming were a bit more staged and practised than a true on sight, to use a climbing term.

Yup. Something like 10 days of filming for 8 minutes. There is a "making of" program on the BBC next week, only in Scotland sadly but thats what iPlayer is for, probably have a few less successful outtakes.
There is a pic on some of the mountain bike sites which indicates he buggered up at least one attempt at the fence flip (by buggering up I mean getting both the bike and himself over but just not attached to each other. Which I would consider a serious success)

> Collies Ledge would not be a difficult cycle on a man made trail, just fatal if you blow it.

There is another biking movie of Hans Rey and Steve Peat cycling on the Cliffs of Moher which is similar. Not technically difficult but the drop and wind makes it rather interesting.

> What impresses me most, is finding the normal route on the Inn Pinn free of crowds.

See the 10 days bit and possibly some bribery.
In reply to Rick Graham:

>The hills are for everyone

The hills are for everyone to use responsibly. That doesn't mean anyone can do whatever they like there.

jcm
 Rick Graham 04 Oct 2014
In reply to dissonance:


> See the 10 days bit and possibly some bribery.

Big George Smith at Dove Crag, itching to make the second ascents of the two F+F routes in 1984.

Film crew trying to shoot Extol with Whillans? and Bonnington?

Can you wait a while please.

Why should I.

How about some food?

OK, then.
In reply to Lusk:
> A wheel exerts less pressure on the ground because it ROLLS over whatever the surface may be, granted it will leave a trough through bog but a lot less erosion than a boot will ever do!

> Now that's not strictly true, what about the horizontal force on the ground from the back wheel when you're peddaling away?

> Then you've got the damage you cause by braking and swerving away whilst descending.

> One bike creates considerably more damage than one pair of boots.

Sorry but you are very wrong. After all it wasn't bikes that led to the abolition of the Lyke Wake WALK was it? That thing could be seen from space. Or did they lead to the monstrosities of the Glen Nevis Tourist PATH/ROAD or those things up in the Lakes? You know the ones I mean. The paths walkers actually walk on weren't put there by God. They were eroded by decades of club footed orcs…………….. And it's pedalling…..and remember the footprint of a tyre (even two) is FAR smaller than a pair of hawkins walkins………….the weight is more spread and exerts far less pressure of a far smaller duration. Get the facts rights and keep your prejudices to yourself.
Post edited at 21:41
 Rick Graham 04 Oct 2014
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

> >The hills are for everyone

> The hills are for everyone to use responsibly. That doesn't mean anyone can do whatever they like there.

> jcm

Yes
In reply to Rick Graham:
> Yes

Sorry mate it's the walkers who have done the damage over the years. Paths are just extreme examples of vandalism. They wouldn't exist without you lot kicking the shit out of the hill. Facts. They didn't, by and large, exist before walkers MADE them. So stop bleating.
You are in the majority but don't OWN the hills, grow up and accept the responsibility for your actions.
Post edited at 21:46
 Rick Graham 04 Oct 2014
In reply to unclesamsauntibess:

?

Are you confusing me with another poster.

I am a climber who needs to walk to get to crags and a mountain biker.
 Brass Nipples 04 Oct 2014
In reply to timreid:

0/10 troll
In reply to Rick Graham:

I'm still amazed that Collie's Ledge can actually be cycled along. There's a section of about 30-40 which is not really a 'ledge' at all in the ordinary sense of the word but a line of weakness of massive holds and spikes and nothing very smooth to cycle on. It's grade 1 scrambling there rather than walking. I would have thought to 'cycle' along it safely would demand quite exceptional skill. Reminder of the feature for those who've forgotten it or don't know:

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Collie%27s+Ledge&espv=2&biw=1192&...

If you come off I think you go about 800 feet before you come to rest. (I.e R.I.P.)
KevinD 04 Oct 2014
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> It's grade 1 scrambling there rather than walking. I would have thought to 'cycle' along it safely would demand quite exceptional skill.

It doesnt show how much he cycled but he does meet your quite exceptional skill requirement. He is a seriously talented rider.
Post edited at 22:18
In reply to dissonance:

Sure. I don't see much risk of more than about 1 in 10,000 people trying to emulate him.
 Timmd 04 Oct 2014
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

> >The hills are for everyone

> The hills are for everyone to use responsibly. That doesn't mean anyone can do whatever they like there.

> jcm

If he's at home on his bike, which he clearly seems to be, I think it's no less irresponsible than walking or scrambling or climbing there.
 Timmd 04 Oct 2014
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> I'm still amazed that Collie's Ledge can actually be cycled along. There's a section of about 30-40 which is not really a 'ledge' at all in the ordinary sense of the word but a line of weakness of massive holds and spikes and nothing very smooth to cycle on. It's grade 1 scrambling there rather than walking. I would have thought to 'cycle' along it safely would demand quite exceptional skill. Reminder of the feature for those who've forgotten it or don't know:


> If you come off I think you go about 800 feet before you come to rest. (I.e R.I.P.)

He's also known as Danny Megaskill. There are some amazing videos of him doing tricks on youtube. Like a lot of talented bikers he'd make a good climber too, in having a great sense of balance.
 Timmd 04 Oct 2014
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

He rides along some tree branches about halfway through this video.

youtube.com/watch?v=PiF5HHkHvX0&
KevinD 05 Oct 2014
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> Sure. I don't see much risk of more than about 1 in 10,000 people trying to emulate him.

I wouldnt see it anywhere close. People would start with the street stuff it they were trying to emulate him and quickly realise their limits.

Here is a blog from someone who worked on it.
http://www.cutmedia.com/the-ridge-and-breathe/
In reply to dissonance:

Yeah, well who can measure these things? I've been cycling competently all my life since the age of 8 and I wouldn't try it if I were offered a trillion pounds.
In reply to Ciro:

> That trick actually made me laugh out loud in sheer disbelief.

Yep, just did exactly that......
 Siward 05 Oct 2014
In reply to unclesamsauntibess:

Don't you walk?

'Kicking the s**t out of the hill?'? I never do that unless I'm really angry. Hurts my toes too...

 Chris the Tall 05 Oct 2014
In reply to Orgsm:

> 0/10 troll

Harsh - I'd say at least 7/10. He has succeeded in getting people arguing after an utterly ridiculous OP
Rigid Raider 05 Oct 2014
In reply to timreid:

I've been a mountaineer for 50 years and was a mountain biker for 24 of those, but have now moved over to the greater subtlety and fitness of road cycling, as have so many others who have grown bored with the filth and wear and tear and the whole mountain biking "scene". Shop owners will tell you that road biking is growing fast at the expense of mountain biking and my own observation is that organised trail centres have done a lot to take mountain bikers out of the hills. Very few of today's mountain bikers know how to use a map or organise a ride in proper mountain terrain, let alone get to and then climb up something as daunting as the Cuillins. I really would not worry about people being encouraged to take their bikes out into the real mountains and the few who do, will be so few in numbers that they won't cause anything like the dreadful erosion that's been caused over the last couple of decades by millions of walkers.
In reply to Rigid Raider:

Indeed, This demo ride is essentially off the scale, after walking up the path to Bowfell a good few times, I'd got it in my head that the path from the Tarn was ride-able, I had a crack at it in 2007 on a turner 5 spot and up on the tops, walkers looked at us like we were completely out of our depth and said 'do you know where you're going' which the standard reply was, 'yeah Robin Hoods bay, and you?' Any road we got to the decent past Bowfell from angle Tarn, and 5 inch travel felt like a road bike and I pushed my bike downhill for a good mile.

Big respect Danny Boy!
 Rick Graham 05 Oct 2014
In reply to John Simpson:

Did you see the photo ( In Climber Mag ) of cycling past Angle Tarn in the 1930's ?

Apparently it used to be standard to cycle from Wasdale to Bradford this way . Possibly with climbing gear as well. Once setting off after a climb on Sunday and still getting to work on time on Monday morning.
In reply to Rick Graham:

No not seen it but sounds about right for the old school hardmen, rod brakes and leather pads down there would be something else.
In reply to Timmd:
> If he's at home on his bike, which he clearly seems to be, I think it's no less irresponsible than walking or scrambling or climbing there.

Maybe so but this the-hills-are-for-everyone crap is stupid. We all need to assess the consequences of our actions, see, e.g., cocks in 4WD vehicles.

My impression (eg the way from Glen Feshie through the pass between the Cairngorms and Carn An Fhidleir; can't recall the glen's name) is that a few mountain bikes cause a hell of a lot more damage than the equivalent number of walkers, but I expect the question could do with some research.

It never ceases to amaze me either how people like USAB can be *quite* so stupid. Obviously the question is not what "walkers" and "mountain bikers" do but what one of each does.

jcm
Post edited at 11:10
OP timreid 05 Oct 2014
In reply to jaggy bunnet:

Wow I'm pleased to see this thread took off a bit and there are lots of interesting points made, thanks folks.

Mr Bunnet I'm replying to you because you're the only person who seems to have taken offence, while everyone else has been constructive bar a few just lazily calling me a troll. I started my post saying how much I admired Danny M so please don't imply I am disrespecting his amazing achievements. I was just interested in what others thought of the tricky ethics of this, which apply to any outdoor pursuit. Statements like 'the hills belong to all of us' often seem to stray dangerously close to 'we can all do whatever we like'. We should always think carefully about whatever impact our activities might have.

I'm not convinced by claims that a bike causes LESS erosion than feet, except possibly while coasting downhill on certain surfaces. Any pressure on the pedals puts backwards pressure on the ground, as does braking or skidding; this all has a tearing effect on horizontal surfaces (e.g. a ridge path) that wouldn't come from boots as much. Uphill perhaps the effects of each would be similar. Anyway I'm happy to admit this back-of-the-envelope analysis might be wrong, maybe someone should do a PhD on this

Personally I wouldn't take a bike up the Cuillin, it wouldn't really seem worth the effort.
OP timreid 05 Oct 2014
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Good point that it's about what each individual does. i.e. the *impact per person* is what matters, not the total impact of bikers or the total impact of walkers.
 blackcat 05 Oct 2014
In reply to aldo56: While your out there can you pick up danny and his bike ,cos some irrisponsible person nicked his boat
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

>(eg the way from Glen Feshie through the pass between the Cairngorms and Carn An Fhidleir; can't recall the glen's name)

Glen Geldie, evidently. I would have guessed Glen Gluasain. Wonder where that is?

jcm
 Timmd 05 Oct 2014
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
> My impression (eg the way from Glen Feshie through the pass between the Cairngorms and Carn An Fhidleir; can't recall the glen's name) is that a few mountain bikes cause a hell of a lot more damage than the equivalent number of walkers, but I expect the question could do with some research.

That can come down to riding responsibly, ie not skidding/doing everything you can not to, and avoiding riding in conditions which will lead to the track being churned up with ruts etc being created.

Perhaps less important a factor where access is across a field, than somewhere like the ridge Danny rode.
Post edited at 14:26
 Chris the Tall 05 Oct 2014
In reply to timreid:

A mountain biker causes more erosion than a walker, walkers cause more erosion than mountain bikers.

Very few people will try and emulate Danny, but (if I'm being generous) I'll assume that your argument is that anything which makes mountain biking look good will encourage people to get out on bikes.

If the damage done was vastly disproportionate and there were no benefits, then you might have a point - that's how I feel about 4x4s. But riding a bike is good exercise, doesn't waste fossil fuel and the damage is not much more than walking. More to the point, mountain bikers take their responsibilities quite seriously - for example there's a twitter feed for the peak for conditions to help people avoid boggy areas.

Tyre tracks, footprints, chalk marks, crampon scratches, over brushing - all pretty trivial in the scheme of things, but sufficient to cause anger to some people. But if the alternative is stopping people from physical activity, enjoying the outdoors, challenging themselves, taking a few risks, then the benefits greatly outweigh the costs.
 MischaHY 05 Oct 2014
In reply to timreid:

Anyone who thinks that it would in any way be a good idea to initiate a skid, or any kind of action that would remotely result in the tyres moving sideways, has absolutely no idea about riding technique or how idiotic such an act would be.

Let me simplify this. If you skid on steep terrain and you're not an absolutely canny b**tard with skill coming out of your ears, you will almost definitely crash. You probably would anyway, because that's just how physics works. Losing control of the back wheel is pretty bad, losing the front is an almost guaranteed crash.

Do you want walkers to stop walking in the mountains? No? Then don't be so conceited as to assume you can tell others to do the same.
 Timmd 05 Oct 2014
In reply to Chris the Tall:
> Tyre tracks, footprints, chalk marks, crampon scratches, over brushing - all pretty trivial in the scheme of things, but sufficient to cause anger to some people. But if the alternative is stopping people from physical activity, enjoying the outdoors, challenging themselves, taking a few risks, then the benefits greatly outweigh the costs.

Things which cultivate an appreciation of nature and the outdoors in people have got to be a good thing, if they encourage us to look after the planet.
Post edited at 18:40
 ChrisJD 05 Oct 2014
In reply to MischaHY:

> Anyone who thinks that it would in any way be a good idea to initiate a skid, or any kind of action that would remotely result in the tyres moving sideways, has absolutely no idea about riding technique or how idiotic such an act would be.

> Let me simplify this. If you skid on steep terrain and you're not an absolutely canny b**tard with skill coming out of your ears, you will almost definitely crash. You probably would anyway, because that's just how physics works. Losing control of the back wheel is pretty bad, losing the front is an almost guaranteed crash.


.. coughs, losing traction and going sideways is where the fun starts allegedly
 MischaHY 05 Oct 2014
In reply to ChrisJD:

On downhill tracks, maybe But not on technical mountain descents.
 ChrisJD 05 Oct 2014
In reply to timreid:

Whatever you do, don't watch this one:

vimeo.com/106715068

They'll be out there in droves I tell you

.... not
 Rich W Parker 05 Oct 2014
In reply to ChrisJD:

Sweet movie, not nearly enough skidding though. Loosing the back end is the business.
OP timreid 06 Oct 2014
In reply to MischaHY:

I wasn't being conceited or telling anyone what they should do, just raising a debate, which has been both enlightening and reassuring. I think you're reading through the lines a bit too much if you're offended by what I wrote, and I don't know where you got the idea I don't know what skidding is... I use my real name on forums like this, so it's all open and honest and I wouldn't type anything I wouldn't willingly say in person. Unfortunately I think I'm unusual in that respect (not a dig at you MischaHY).

I really look forward to Danny M's programme on Friday. Happy riding/climbing/walking to all.
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
So JCM has only been climbing for twenty years and lives in London, citing his best day was a "cragging" experience. Where is the pedigree there? I bet he's never heard of the Lyke Wake Walk and it's ensuing demise…. bikes never went near it. Those ROADS that have been created around Harter Fell to access High Street, the Tourist Highway to the Ben from Glen Nevis are a result of over use by walkers. Bikes have never been near them either. So how does the erosion/path construction/modification happen? Bikes like singletrack - think about the construction of the actual word. Bikers are far more environmentally friendly than boots.

I will never get over how stupid some people really can be. He says he doesn't even climb anymore!

Anyway does any one on here actually know how hard Gabbro is? Also how compliant rubber is? My take is that the tyres will wear away long long before the rock………look how many tyres a car will use by being driven on the road….
Post edited at 16:57
 Ramblin dave 06 Oct 2014
In reply to unclesamsauntibess:
> So JCM has only been climbing for twenty years and lives in London, citing his best day was a "cragging" experience. Where is the pedigree there? I bet he's never heard of the Lyke Wake Walk and it's ensuing demise…. bikes never went near it. Those ROADS that have been created around Harter Fell to access High Street, the Tourist Highway to the Ben from Glen Nevis are a result of over use by walkers. Bikes have never been near them either. So how does the erosion/path construction/modification happen? Bikes like singletrack - think about the construction of the actual word. Bikers are far more environmentally friendly than boots.

None of the paths that you mention have been damaged by tanks either. Does that mean that tanks are more environmentally friendly than boots as well?

I mean, I think the complaint that started the thread is pretty spurious - the main environmental impact of large numbers of mountain bikers getting "inspired" by that video would be the cuillin being littered with dead mountain bikers - but you've completely ignored JCM's point that "obviously the question is not what "walkers" and "mountain bikers" do but what one of each does."
Post edited at 17:11
 ChrisJD 06 Oct 2014
In reply to Ramblin dave:

> "obviously the question is not what "walkers" and "mountain bikers" do but what one of each does."

If tens of thousands of walkers use a given track and only a few bikers use it, then walkers are clearly the main eroding force. So relative scale of use can also be very important.

Though I'm sure it suits the cause of many walkers to blame occasional bikers for the scars caused by walkers to upland areas.

http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/article-1355806001580/

£250,000 per mile to repair ....

 MischaHY 06 Oct 2014
In reply to timreid:

No worries. Everybody gets riled about things they're passionate about :')

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...