Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

What are the arguments for and against allowing bicycles in wilderness areas in the US?

+0
−0

Currently bicycles are prohibited in federal wilderness areas in the United States. However there is a bill in the House of Representatives that would remove the prohibition.

As one can imagine, this has stirred up a rather fierce debate on both sides of the proposal both for and against.

Important

Because this is a controversial subject, I am not asking whether or not this is a good or bad idea or what the pros and cons would be but rather hoping for a fair listing of the arguments on both sides.

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.
Why should this post be closed?

0 comment threads

1 answer

+1
−0

I'm a cyclist on the side of people being allowed to ride on trails in National Parks. The arguments for are simple: allow bikes so cyclists can enjoy nature while doing a healthy activity they also enjoy. Bikes are faster than hiking, allowing you to explore more trail in a day, make the descents a lot easier, and also enable older people who can't hike well (bad knees) to still enjoy a gentle trail by cycling.

The arguments against are mainly related to trail maintenance and safety. Bikes can make a mess out of muddy hiking trails, especially when strong cyclists try to pedal through the mud and dig up ruts, but maintenance wise that the only con to a bike, unless you want to include tire tracks on rocks. The main concern is safety; people bombing down a popular trail and colliding with hikers, or scaring horses, which usually results in people getting bucked off and hurt. Parks are concerned about liability. Mountain Biking is a high speed sport, and high speed sports are all capable of producing serious injuries. Park officials don't want to have to deal with crashes and wipeouts, or complaints from jumpy hikers about that crazy cyclist who passed them going "dangerously fast".

Parks are all about keeping the peace, which mostly means the peace and quiet in the administration building, they don't want to deal with paperwork, which incidents of any type create for them. It's easier to ban an activity then it is to deal with the injuries and drama from it.

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

This post was sourced from https://outdoors.stackexchange.com/a/16951. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.

0 comment threads

Sign up to answer this question »