Often looking at photos in the great outdoors, you can't tell how steep a trail is. A gnarly rocky descent on a steep hillside can come across as a flat track with some teeny rocks on. A big rooty drop off can look like a bit of a wood land trail.
BTW I'm too old now to call our sport/hobby/past time anything but mtbing.
VTT
Wot he says
But then again I guess most of us could take a road bike round glentress red – slowly and carefully using the chicken lines – so does that make glentress not mountainbiking?
This is where a lot of the definitions and so on will fall down.
Yes we (competent riders) could do it on a road bike.
Those of us into running could run it (in probably a similar time). If you wanted a work out you could probably do it on a pogo stick or a space hopper.
But for recreational mtbing, it is, I would hope, most fun on some sort of mtb.
Scotroutes
I’m not. I’m happy that it encompasses loads of stuff. I think TJ is trying to explain that to @stevextc with his “definition”. I’ve given up trying.
It's not MY definition. Gravel became a thing.
We don't own the future of mountain biking, the kids do.
Bunnyhop
BTW I’m too old now to call our sport/hobby/past time anything but mtbing.
I'm well past that age. What I do mind is reframing mountain biking specifically for people for whom it's completely unsuited.
Next thing you get the moaners and pressure from action groups about how things should conform to their screwed up definitions of safe. Even more disturbingly is these sort of people actually WANT SOMEONE ELSE to have bad crash so they can validate their whining and have stuff made "safe" or destroyed according to their definitions.... and pressure landowners who are generous enough to allow and encourage trails
Trying to define MTBing is a bit sad.
It's like listening to a bunch of teenagers arguing about which bands are 'Metal'.
Pathetic. 😀
And what is called “gravel riding” these days was mountainbiking years ago.
For some, there’s others of us who’ve always been throwing ourselves of the edges of things to see what will happen since the 90’s.
This.
What is now "Gravel" has never been mountain biking for me other than a means to get to the fun bits. It wasn't for any of the folks I rode with back in the '90's either and we live in an area almost as flat as Norfolk.
ATB seems to be a nomenclature that stirs a few memories from those days.
RustySpanner
Trying to define MTBing is a bit sad.
It’s like listening to a bunch of teenagers arguing about which bands are ‘Metal’.
Perhaps as to an extent it is what it is... it's evolved and even evolved so far as to separate species...
However like anything with commercial interests some are going to try anyway and its a question of being pushed or pulled and what many will try and take away because they are against other people having fun doing what they like.
The whole assertion of Dangerous Sport to Fun Activity will end up trying to put MTB into a box that can be controlled and managed by the fun police.
Fundamentally the whole concept of "dangerous" is being projected as if its a reality without a proper definition or proper statistics for that definition. If anything it is trying to convince people that something that isn't dangerous is.
Lets take the definition of the Butler committee.
PROPOSALS OF THE BUTLER COMMITTEE AND THE SCOTTISH COUNCIL ON CRIME IN THE UNITED KINGDOM
DANGEROUSNESS IS A PROPENSITY TO CAUSE SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY OR LASTING PSYCHOLOGICAL HARM.
Serious physical injury is death, paralysis it is most specifically not anything the minor injury clinic can treat like a broken arm or wrist... otherwise it wouldn't be called a minor injury.
Even the most extreme forms of MTB rarely result in serious physical injury... Noone died at hardline yet... or even had a serious injury and everyone including the competitors is going to agree that is EXTREME
What we have is a misperception of what danger is perhaps?
Every time anyone looks for data on serious injuries in MTB there is never enough... take neck braces for example. Not enough people have serious injuries riding DH to make for meaningful stats either way.
In contrast take road cycling either as a sport of leisure activity where lots of people die and have serious injuries.
Ultimately most injuries in MTB (overwhelming) are minor, the result from hitting something be it the ground or another object and most of the time you just aren't going that fast in MTB. You can crash off a jump or you can fall off a stile carrying the bike or riding from the car park to trails and the RESULT are all about the same.
Equally these minor injuries are not really avoidable... you can dodge them perhaps but there isn't a version of MTB/road/horse riding or kids playgrounds that is free of risk of minor injuries.
People in the UK just need to accept it's OK to have the odd minor injury .. and for those who see MTB as "dangerous" they need to reframe THEIR ideas of dangerous - kids need to have their playgrounds made more like other countries so the odd broken bone is normal and they learn to judge and manage risk...
There is a really good paper on this but this will do for now
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/10/world/europe/britain-playgrounds-risk.html
tldr: bike companies, if they want to reframe mtbing should support youtube’s and the like to make content that would attract new participants.
I’m not the one invented “gravel riding” or the term it’s just something that happened with the evolution of (mountain) biking.
isn’t gravel riding an evolution of road bikes by making road bike more suitable for racing on unmade roads?
stevexc, while i understand your concerns, what is needed is the grading of the trails so that it is clear to folk what challenges they can expect to encounter and the level of fitness, skill or experience that they may need to safely complete the trail and signs at the entrance to the trail that make that clear. not sure where the level of information would stop. a black diamond will mean nothing to a person who doesn’t know what a black diamond indicates.
signs to point out the jumps/ride arounds could also help. what you don’t want to do is make the jumps rollable, it will ruin them in no time.
i do take issue with your definition that if a trail is wide enough for a car it is not mountain mining. their are trails wide enough for cars all over the alps that are steep enough and loose enough to warrant using a mountain bike rather than a gravel bike.
but getting back to the original question, cycling off road is physically difficult and and often cold and slippery. to give it the appeal of skiing, it needs to be as aspirational and not many people aspire to be wet and muddy.
skis also have lifts. introducing lifts to hills may raise the appeal, but then you’d need to have easy trails for people to ride back down.
the trails would need to be maintained and this would be difficult and expensive. as a result it probably wouldn’t be done properly and the easy trails would become difficult and unpleasant to ride by people looking for an easy and non-scary experience.
if you rely on volunteer labour to fix the trails, from what i’ve seen the volunteers will already be mountain bikers who are building the trails that they want to ride.
anyway, i’m boring myself with the negativity.
i understand the barriers to entry into mountain biking experienced by underrepresented groups, but if you want to mountain bike/ride off road why wouldn’t you just ride your bike in a park until you get bored of that, then move on to riding in the woods, etc.
obviously, you need a bike and a park and woods, but no amount of reframing mountain biking as a family day out will address that.
i watched paul the punter’s video on why he stopped mountain biking (it is the only video of his i’ve watched). he put forward an interesting point. he suggested that youtubers do more to advance the popularity of the sport/activity of mountain biking than the big brands. and i see what he means. how many folk would look at rampage and think “that’s for me!”?
meanwhile the youtubers are of various levels of abilities and better show what mountain biking is like for the vast majority of people. if bike brands wanted to get more people into riding off road, perhaps they should support, or even create grassroots/beginner type content?
he also said that jordie lunn had his fatal accident on a blue trail.
if they want to reframe mtbing should support youtube’s and the like to make content that would attract new participants.
[url= https://i.postimg.cc/L61ZkhHH/Screenshot-20221206-172856.pn g" target="_blank">https://i.postimg.cc/L61ZkhHH/Screenshot-20221206-172856.pn g"/> [/img][/url]
"We" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that byline.
What I do mind is reframing mountain biking specifically for people for whom it’s completely unsuited.
You know what? Someone can call whatever they like 'mountain biking' if it gets more people riding bikes in the woods or hills. I don't care, I'd be happy.
Make it safer, make it different, make it simpler or easier, make it less nerdy+techy, just get more people doing something that isn't watching junk on tv or scrolling social media. Get people outside and feeling what living in the moment feels like. Or go climbing or birdwatching instead, it's all outdoors, positive and real.
I don't care because I don't hang my own identity on the image of mountain biking. I think that goes for most of us who ride MTBs. I just ride bikes, all over the place. All kinds of bikes. They're great and the more doing something similar the merrier.
Even the most extreme forms of MTB rarely result in serious physical injury… Noone died at hardline yet… or even had a serious injury and everyone including the competitors is going to agree that is EXTREME
What we have is a misperception of what danger is perhaps?
Alex Honnold is still alive, maybe soloing El Cap isn't that dangerous either? : )
I've done way more damage to myself on my road bikes than MTB'ing, some very serious. MTB had been no more that a bruised shoulder. Road bike has been ribs twice, spine once, shoulder (needing surgery) once, shoulder again, and recently big scar on forearm. Thing is speed is an issue on road bikes, and cars.
I do, however, ride within my skills on the MTB - road bike has been other road users mainly, or conditions on the road suddenly changing (greasy surface/ice).
We had an epic day in October in the Clywidian range. Four of us, two were very fit. I managed OK but my mate suffered badly with the climbing involved. I've never been the same since breaking my spine so lost fitness, and one of our mates is a big lad. The other two, one is a seriously quick road rider (who MTB's) and the other just quick riding anything and a bit of a nutter on a bike. The big lad suffered. The quick roadie/MTB rider stacked it less than a mile from the car going too quick down a grassy descent - wheel just dug into ruts. 4 broken ribs and a puntured lung - this happened on Saturday, he didn't go to A&E until Monday when back in England - don't crash in that bit of N. Wales.
It can be brutal MTB'ing - especially when in the middle of nowhere, and not in a trail centre.
jamesco
Alex Honnold is still alive, maybe soloing El Cap isn’t that dangerous either? : )
That's not really the point.
The point really is hardline is probably towards the extreme end yet no-one died or even had a major injury despite lots and lots of crashes. I think this year over 1/2 had minor injuries in practice...but just a few broken bones etc.
I don’t care because I don’t hang my own identity on the image of mountain biking. I think that goes for most of us who ride MTBs. I just ride bikes, all over the place. All kinds of bikes. They’re great and the more doing something similar the merrier.
Unfortunately many who do suffer from self-image do take exception to others doing fun things and seek to stop them having fun because of their own irrational fears. They scream and shout and throw their toys out of the pram when a trail gets a feature that scares them and start making threats .. the "when someone hurts themselves I told you so" sort that then gets landowners nervous.
Ultimately someone will hurt themselves BECAUSE ITS MTB.... and they then are finally happy and all to ready to go give evidence.
Alex Honnold is still alive, maybe soloing El Cap isn’t that dangerous either? : )
That’s not really the point.
The point really is hardline is probably towards the extreme end yet no-one died or even had a major injury despite lots and lots of crashes. I think this year over 1/2 had minor injuries in practice…but just a few broken bones etc.
The point being that the riders or climbers doing these things have huge amounts of skill and experience and they work up to that level so injuries are probably less common than among the weekend warriors at BPW. And still,
'over 1/2 had minor injuries in practice'
'Just a few broken bones'
: )
How 'dangerous' it is is not something I'm taking a position on, it's subjective. But safe to say MTB overall in general on average etc is not the same as RC car racing. Riding bikes away from traffic can be a very safe activity though.
Unfortunately many who do suffer from self-image do take exception to others doing fun things and seek to stop them having fun because of their own irrational fears. They scream and shout and throw their toys out of the pram when a trail gets a feature that scares them and start making threats .. the “when someone hurts themselves I told you so” sort that then gets landowners nervous.
If a landowner is getting nervous it needs managing by the rational people who risk assess things and get the permission to build the stuff. If you want to build trail features to add excitement that's some of what comes with it?
Is this mountainbiking?
We're calling it "wild cycling" now, do keep up.
he suggested that youtubers do more to advance the popularity of the sport/activity of mountain biking than the big brands
Well he would say that, wouldn't he?
They're doing **** all for advocacy though, apart from causing problems by popularising riding spots which would have been more word-of-mouth previously.
jameso
How ‘dangerous’ it is is not something I’m taking a position on, it’s subjective. But safe to say MTB overall in general on average etc is not the same as RC car racing. Riding bikes away from traffic can be a very safe activity though.
Sorry but if you want to say something is dangerous or safe or anything in-between to anyone other than yourself but especially in the context where it is going to be used to scare/threaten people you need to take a position and (in the wider context) provide evidence.
Hence why I took the PROPOSALS OF THE BUTLER COMMITTEE AND THE SCOTTISH COUNCIL as a yardstick.
I personally use a simpler one, is it something I'd be rushed to A&E or ICU directly from a minor injuries clinic.
If the NHS define it as a minor injury (i.e simple breaks etc.) then IMHO you need to say why you either disagree or agree before just dismissing it?
The point being that the riders or climbers doing these things have huge amounts of skill and experience and they work up to that level so injuries are probably less common than among the weekend warriors at BPW. And still,
‘over 1/2 had minor injuries in practice’
‘Just a few broken bones’
: )
Yet Kerr crashed full on with a completely exploded wheel as fast as most people would EVER go , walked away and rode the next day. Lots of people crashed yet no-one died... because crashing depends how fast and what you hit... hitting a stone wall on a gravel bike at the same speed would doubtlessly ended up in serious injury and probably death...
If a landowner is getting nervous it needs managing by the rational people who risk assess things and get the permission to build the stuff. If you want to build trail features to add excitement that’s some of what comes with it?
Except that isn't what happens mostly... what happens is the land owner gets threatened by the fun police and they just decide its better to just go along with them or ban MTB on their land.
What is even going through the heads of the sicko's that threaten them and the volunteers if they don't do as they are told?
But safe to say MTB overall in general on average etc is not the same as RC car racing. Riding bikes away from traffic can be a very safe activity though.
All going back to the definition of dangerous and safe.
Accept a few minor injuries and its incredibly safe compared to road cycling...
LAT
anyway, i’m boring myself with the negativity.
Fair enough ... thing is I think you start to think it through and ultimately you can't keep it "open" AND "safe"
The criteria (which are pretty crap anyway) for trail grading then get "expected" on open access ... and even if they were built that way they aren't going to stay that way.
obviously, you need a bike and a park and woods, but no amount of reframing mountain biking as a family day out will address that.
That really depends on how you frame "family day out"
Would me, jnr and his aunt call a day riding double-triple blacks a family day out?
His mother isn't going to do anything involves getting cold, muddy or she might get a bit hurt... my mum (gran) is fine with cold and wet and muddy but she's not starting at 85... his mum's sister would be all up for it
That said it would be the same for snowboarding or skiing...
Sorry but if you want to say something is dangerous or safe or anything in-between to anyone other than yourself but especially in the context where it is going to be used to scare/threaten people you need to take a position and (in the wider context) provide evidence.
Hence why I took the PROPOSALS OF THE BUTLER COMMITTEE AND THE SCOTTISH COUNCIL as a yardstick.
That's cool - that's what I meant, I personally don't have to take a position on it as I'm not building trails or promoting MTB as one thing or another. I'm trying to see how others see MTB. What I think doesn't matter here because I'm not judging MTB in any way that has a bearing on what it is.
If the NHS define it as a minor injury (i.e simple breaks etc.) then IMHO you need to say why you either disagree or agree before just dismissing it?
OK.. a broken bone might be classed as minor to the trained staff of the NHS but while I wouldn't question their assessment it'd not be very minor to me personally : )
But we're into semantics and anyone's free to disagree when I suggest it's reasonable to see more risks in MTB than a number of other pass-times or sports - which kind of is 'taking a position on it', but it's more about reflecting how it may be seen generally, a lot of what this debate is about.
Yet Kerr crashed full on with a completely exploded wheel as fast as most people would EVER go , walked away and rode the next day.
Crashes can be so random can't they, there isn't much input=output repeatability. Where I think we find common ground is that Hardline or a trail centre should have a lowered risk due to risk assessments / minimisation, like an FMEA for routes. So they should be safer to some extent than roads and natural trail despite the perceptions of the activity happening on them and the ease of a broken collarbone etc wherever you ride, from a simple slip or a big crash landing. If you make that lower risk trail centre more enjoyable in terms of effort vs reward it's becoming that 'fun activity'.
I agree with a lot said here but feel positive. I’m an off road cyclist and find road biking terrifying but I do think we are all in this together. Riding 2 wheels under (all or mostly) our own power, covering enough distance to change the view, urban or rural, is the magic of cycling. Add the challenge of climbs/descents/gnar and it’s a truly rewarding activity. As a windsurfer, I see biking as an incredibly successful pastime with enormous variety, higher likelihood of an excellent day out and a great amount of youth coming up through the system. It’s (rightly) pretty flipping successful.
So to Hannah’s point, I believe we are just part of the enlightened people who take great joy from being out under the sky using our bodies to move and we belong to a wider and more diverse group of outdoor people, each doing something that gives us pleasure. Can we pool our resources and love for what we do and help encourage others to find what we’ve collectively found?
jameso
Crashes can be so random can’t they, there isn’t much input=output repeatability. Where I think we find common ground is that Hardline or a trail centre should have a lowered risk due to risk assessments / minimisation, like an FMEA for routes.
I don't think we can pretend hardline is really safe, sooner or later someone who has chosen to do it will die... BUT it illustrates the point.
They ACCEPT the risk at their level... they shouldn't be there if they cant do their own risk assessment. Everyone walks the track first ... some/many bike parks do FULL track walks in the morning daily... to cover their own risk/insurance but they still have wavers.
So trail centres? That's where it starts to get tricky.... because as you say crashes can be so random but also there is always going to be some snowflake with a lawyer. This even extends to non trail centres and permitted riding.
There is some guy currently making all sorts of threats to the charity that administer public access for Hurtwood ... how he was an expert witness on a previous case awarding X Million... and threatening the recognised official trail builders that he knows who they are.
This all comes from some misguided idea that MTB is somehow "safe" in their definition.... that somehow someone can buy a bike and go and ride on someone else's property on trails they didn't build and if they get hurt because they are shit and/or just unlucky they can sue someone. There are always being to be sick individuals who's source of enjoyment in life is ruining the enjoyment of others but we shouldn't be putting this power into their hands.
This all comes from some misguided idea that MTB is somehow “safe” in their definition
It is safe. Indeed the health benefits vastly outweigh the health risks
If you feel its unsafe then there is something odd about your risk assessment or you are riding well beyond your abilities
you are riding well beyond your abilities
Isn't that a part of the fun for many? Pushing limits etc
It is safe. Indeed the health benefits vastly outweigh the health risks
If you feel its unsafe then there is something odd about your risk assessment or you are riding well beyond your abilities
Hence why snowflakes need to be told to just find some other pastime not REFRAME Mountain biking to their screwed up perception of risk.
Errmmm - IMO its you that has the odd perception thinking a safe pastime is dangerous. Its not.
Isn’t that a part of the fun for many? Pushing limits etc
It's still SAFE... as DANGEROUS means DEATH or paralysis ... anything else is just part and parcel of MTB.
If people try and reframe SAFE as not risk breaking the odd bone they need to go find another hobby as that isn't possible in MTB.
SAFE as not risk breaking the odd bone they need to go find another hobby as that isn’t possible in MTB.
Yes it is. the vast majority of us never break bones
tjagain
Yes it is. the vast majority of us never break bones
It just means you have been lucky or you don't MTB...
Nope - it means your perception of risk is skewed. MTBing is not risky.
It just means you have been lucky or you don’t MTB…
Source?
Nope – it means your perception of risk is skewed. MTBing is not risky.
I agree because breaking an odd bone and other minor injuries doesn't make it risky...
matt_outandabout
Source?
People fall 3' and break bones all the time.... it's called bad luck.
Source?
actually why you asking for my source...??? it's TJ claiming the vast majority of us never break bones..where his his source?
I agree because breaking an odd bone and other minor injuries doesn’t make it risky…
It doesn't make it risky...to you. Others can and will think very differently, especially when you start breaking bones.
mtb CAN be dangerous but it depends on your abilities and what you're doing at the time.
As far as risk assessments go, human beings are very poor at assessing risk, most either turn a blind eye to it or convince themselves it wont happen to them.
it’s TJ claiming the vast majority of us never break bones..where his his source?
30+ years of mountainbiking with a huge variety of folk of all skills. Ive seen one broken bone. 40+ years of road riding two deaths
Its much safer than road riding for example but some of you seem to think its this dangerous extreme sport when it really is not. Why this need to see it in this way is beyond me. Unless your assessment of risk is crap and you ride way beyond your abilities then its simply not dangerous
^^A handy little exchange for illustrating the original point of discussion (long after the event)...
How many promoters of sports/hobbies try to woo potential participants by stating broken bones are part and parcel of it, or that failure to injure yourself is evidence that your not 'really doing it'...
That's definitely how you'll grow MTBing, double down on the "Bro-vado"...
TJ
30+ years of mountainbiking with a huge variety of folk of all skills. Ive seen one broken bone. 40+ years of road riding two deaths
Just because you only saw one doesn't mean there weren't others.... (unless you have some super power xray vision)
Its much safer than road riding for example but some of you seem to think its this dangerous extreme sport when it really is not.
Of course its safer than road riding... Safe being the opposite of DANGEROUS.
I'm not claiming its a dangerous sport, I'm saying it has an inherent risk of minor injury.
Why are you even trying to conflate a few broken bones with dangerous sport?
Conventionally risk analysis has 2 main axes... likelihood and impact and you keep conflating them.
Why this need to see it in this way is beyond me. Unless your assessment of risk is crap and you ride way beyond your abilities then its simply not dangerous
I've not said it WAS dangerous.... quite the opposite the chance of death is minimal
Hitting a brick wall/bus at 60 mph is dangerous.... falling on the floor at 10-15 mph isn't... You can kill yourself at 15mph but it's very difficult and involves a lot of bad luck.
If we conflate risk of minor injuries with danger (impact)... and people get the idea they can MTB without risk of the odd minor injury then the snowflakes start suing and injury lawyers and ambulance chasers ensue and trails get closed.
Flicker
It doesn’t make it risky…to you. Others can and will think very differently, especially when you start breaking bones.
mtb CAN be dangerous but it depends on your abilities and what you’re doing at the time.
If we step back ... rather than my response to a response to a response....
MTB isn't risky in terms of consequences (impact) only in terms of frequency of minor injuries.
Breaking the odd bone isn't high impact... snowflakes might pretend it is but we can't live our lives based round people with a skewed sense of reality.
As far as risk assessments go, human beings are very poor at assessing risk, most either turn a blind eye to it or convince themselves it wont happen to them.
More to the point risk around MTB is often completely screwed ...
"What if I case the gap?" - erm you slow down a lot and can't do the next jump
"What if my front wheel washes out on a loose stone or slippery root" - you'll probably pile your head into the ground
"What if I have a mechanical or there is a white out in the middle of nowhere in winter?" - erm you'll quiote possibly die if you don't have sufficient survival equipment
and the absolute classic?
"what if I have a heart attack on the climb" .... ask very few people ever.
or "what if I have a traffic accident on the way to the trails"
Many people see the first one as "risky or dangerous" but you're going to hurt yourself the same just slipping on a root at the same speed (and most jumps absolutely require <15mph) and don't even consider the danger of driving somewhere or being stranded in the middle of nowhere in winter.
cookeaa
How many promoters of sports/hobbies try to woo potential participants by stating broken bones are part and parcel of it,
Why should we be trying to woo anyone ?
On the other hand lying to people and pretending its not part and parcel of MTB is .. well lying...
More importantly with the snowflakes and ambulance chasers in today's UK it is what is going to kill MTB
or that failure to injure yourself is evidence that your not ‘really doing it’…
I'm confused as to what that is in reference to ?
If we step back … rather than my response to a response to a response….
MTB isn’t risky in terms of consequences (impact) only in terms of frequency of minor injuries.Breaking the odd bone isn’t high impact… snowflakes might pretend it is but we can’t live our lives based round people with a skewed sense of reality.
I'd disagree regarding breaking bones, it is high impact and it can be a serious problem depending on the severity of the break, where you are and who you're with when it happens.
I wouldn't class it as a safe pass time either, but then everything we do carries a level of risk. The trick is assessing the risk level and doing what we can to mitigate those risks, if you can accept that then crack on, if not then don't do it. As I said though, we're generally rubbish at assessing risk.
flicker
I’d disagree regarding breaking bones, it is high impact and it can be a serious problem depending on the severity of the break, where you are and who you’re with when it happens.
We seem to be almost violently agreeing .... I'm simply disagreeing on it being high impact by definition of a broken bone.
Punctured lungs and internal bleeding are high impact but just breaking a bone in itself is just a trivial minor injury without complications.. and these tend to be the level of MTB injuries for most of us that aren't riding hardline.
I wouldn’t class it as a safe pass time either, but then everything we do carries a level of risk.
As I've been saying for several pages... without some definition of "safe" and "dangerous" it's quite meaningless outside of our personal definitions. Even in terms of impact the same injury can have a different impact on different people depending on their work and benefits and health.
The whole point is there is a random aspect to crashing... it doesn't matter how slow you go a root can be slippery, a rock can come loose etc. and you can break a bone or dislocate a joint just falling off a stationary bike or 2 steps of a step ladder so it is never without risk of minor injury.
If we don't resist this snowflake HSSE bullsh%t at every opportunity we are going to end up in a world no-one can do anything without some HSSE piece of crap interfering and threatening legal action.
Safe would be accidents rare and serious accidents extremely rare
Mountainbiking would fit this
BYW - I am trained in risk assessment and am not confusing incidence and severity.
Why you have this need to claim its risky, broken bones are the norm i cannot fathom. Why this pretense that its an extreme sport when its a safe pastime and why this weird emphasis on snowflakes and health and safety ruining things?
Its so detached from reality or the norm its unfathomable to me
Its so detached from reality or the norm its unfathomable to me
To who you are, where you ride and what you ride maybe ? Your 'MTB' is potentially completely different MTB to his...
Which changes the risk dramatically maybe ?
This is MTBing in my world... plus knowing where and how Steve and his lad ride... it's not too far away from their version
Even thats only risky if you are riding well beyond your abilities - and thats a long way from the mainstream or are we now back to "if you don't do 20foot gaps its not mountainbiking"
Its his insistence that MTB is inherently dangerous and that serious injury ( broken bone is a serious injury) is the norm
My MTB ing often has a very different risk profile - because guess what - I go out in the mountains in winter. You know real mountains where people die every year - and its still not risky!
Even thats only risky if you are riding well beyond your abilities
I've seen people break collar bones on a standard across field rut, about 2" deep and went wrong, doing about 6mph... He's a perfectly competent MTBer. However, he slipped, fell off and broken the top of his shoulder off. Not even remotely beyond abilities..
I've seen plenty of others, i've HAD plenty of others, you lose the front in a corner, you crash on chalky clay stuff on the SDW etc... it's effortless... but not really pushing any boundaries.
Safe would be accidents rare and serious accidents extremely rare
some of us don't want some snowflake saying what others can and cant do and trying to make out stuff is dangerous and making threats to have trails closed because they think they are "dangerous".
Mountainbiking would fit this
Your idea of it might...crack on
BYW – I am trained in risk assessment and am not confusing incidence and severity.
LOL .. sure in your head
Why you have this need to claim its risky, broken bones are the norm i cannot fathom.
I didn't say its risky I said minor injuries including a few broken bones are the norm for people (e.g. homo sapiens) and that is not risky it's normal life .
Why this pretense that its an extreme sport
WHERE DID I SAY ITS AN EXTEME SPORT ???
when its a safe pastime
Unless you define safe that's meaningless.. I've never said it wasn't safe.
Even huge crashes off road rarely kill someone ergo it's not dangerous ergo its safe.
and why this weird emphasis on snowflakes and health and safety ruining things?
Umm because some people have no life of their own and instead get their enjoyment out of trying to ruin everyone else's fun by pretending minor injuries are dangerous and not perfectly normal
Its so detached from reality or the norm its unfathomable to me
Life is reality not the screwed up cotton wool world where people are scared of doing anything fun and people think its OK to threaten people for building a few gaps jumps on private land...
We seem to be almost violently agreeing …. I’m simply disagreeing on it being high impact by definition of a broken bone.
Quite possibly, I'm easily confused 😀
tjagain
Its his insistence that MTB is inherently dangerous
Once again it's not DANGEROUS... people rarely die.
and that serious injury ( broken bone is a serious injury) is the norm
No it isn't, that's why they treat it at the MINOR INJURY CLINIC unless there are complications
Oh dear - it just gets weirder.
As often on STW, I think we've got people here unable to understand, or even see, that their particular view or case is not the same as other people's, and might not even be typical of anyone's.
And therein lies the problem. How can we become a more inclusive community (can't see how anyone would want to argue that we shouldn't try to be?) if we can't even accommodate each others' PoV when we're all riders here?
If there are issues with particular trails and conflicting user groups, then put all that righteous energy into trying to resolve that (and make stuff better for everyone) rather than arguing circles on here?
Get out on your bike. Have fun (whatever that means for you). Keep yourself safe (whatever that means for you). Come back and tell anyone who'll listen that (mountain) bikes are ace and they should get one and go ride it wherever and however they want, and bollocks to anyone trying to tell them what they can and can't enjoy or that they're not a 'real' MTBer if they don't fit any single narrow (minded) definition.
Weeksy
This is MTBing in my world… plus knowing where and how Steve and his lad ride… it’s not too far away from their version
I'm expecting he walked away and at worse minor injuries (Obviously given its in retrospect) .. but MOST IMPORTANTLY (for this thread not you in that instance)
I’ve seen people break collar bones on a standard across field rut, about 2″ deep and went wrong, doing about 6mph…
This .^^^^. be it the 2" rut, the frosty root or loose stone all at walking pace.
If anything I'd say its RARELY where/when you expect... it's the 2" ruts and the like at 6mph get you
I think the point really here is we see and do these "big crashes" on a fairly regular basis... and mostly (overwhelmingly) nothing serious happens... whereas these unexpected 2" ruts are just as likely to lead to injury.
The PERCEIVED DANGER is not the actual DANGER...
Colournoise
bollocks to anyone trying to tell them what they can and can’t enjoy or that they’re not a ‘real’ MTBer if they don’t fit any single narrow (minded) definition.
The issue is snowflakes and ambulance chasers are trying to control what other people can and can't ride and getting trails closed down because of either their screwed up idea of "safe" or just to make money.
There was a bloke 2 weeks ago THREATENING a charity, the Friends of the Hurtwood over a couple of tiny and completely optional gap jumps saying how he'd been an expert witness on a case awarded £2M of damages .. when someone got hurt and demanding they were removed.
Ultimately there is no "safe" mountain biking by the snowflake definition .. its mountain biking and slippery roots, rocks coming loose or that 2" rut are going to catch someone out sooner or later.
Colournoise
And therein lies the problem. How can we become a more inclusive community (can’t see how anyone would want to argue that we shouldn’t try to be?) if we can’t even accommodate each others’ PoV when we’re all riders here?
Mountain biking doesn't need more snowflakes that go running to the personal injury lawyers every time they have a minor injury and the volunteers didn't go out before them and sweep the trails clean for them and unless that happens then sniper roots, loose rocks and 2" ruts are going to catch people out and people are going to have a few minor injuries and even a few major injuries and deaths. The case they guy was saying he was an expert witness on led to someone becoming a paraplegic .. because shit happens and it's MTB
The sad thing is these threats don't need to be more than threats... they just need to have a chance of winning in court to get trails closed down.
I think we maybe need to bring this back to the original Article.
The question was really about how the wider perception of MTBing can be adjusted with various groups, both to improve uptake (helping grow the demand for trails) as well as improve the wider perception of MTBing to help the arguments in favour of access and support for MTBing and trail building in various parts of the UK.
I suppose we've gone a long way off-base arguing whether or not people's risk perception is correctly calibrated, how many bones you have to break before you're a real MTBerist, or labelling people 'Snowflakes'...
It's all sort of irrelevant. Really the issue just comes down to the fact that MTBing is a diverse hobby/sport, but those public perceptions are becoming a limiting factor if you want to grow it.
The point still stands though a few things do just put others off of MTBing/MTBers; partly the perception that it's dangerous and a drag on resources causing emergency services to have to go fishing broken IT managers off of mountain sides with helicopters. The idea that we're rude; charging past walkers and Horseyists without slowing. As well as the majority Pale/Male culture and associated ****ty laddishness and so on...
These are perceptions, not necessarily the truth of things, but the way MTBing is presented both in its own dedicated Media and the wider press, as well as how those of us "in the uniform" are seen to behave do still seem to reinforce these ideas, so there has to be a kernel of truth to at least some of it. So what can we do to change that if anything?
So what can we do to change that if anything?
This was alluded to in the [url= https://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/commercial-cycle-event-costs/ ]Cost of Events thread[/url] basically saying that MTBers are too disorganised, have no coherent club structure and actually quite a lax attitude to rules and regulations - classic case in point being riding on FPs.
As a result (and as demonstrated over 4 sodding pages by TJ above) is that one person's definition of MTB is not shared by others. There's a host of advocacy groups, mostly very local (and I'm not knocking them, they do great work) but no coherent national picture. Cycling UK, bless them, try and get involved sometimes, Sustrans don't really care other than occasionally claiming that some random bit of BW would make a great part of the "National Cycle Network" (or as I've heard it called many times, the Notional Cycle Notwork...).
Different areas of the country have very different riding conditions so attract different sort of "MTBing" - what is MTBing on the South Downs is very definitely not MTBing on the North York Moors and you don't get that distinction in road riding other than a definition of "hilly".
These are perceptions, not necessarily the truth of things, but the way MTBing is presented both in its own dedicated Media and the wider press, as well as how those of us “in the uniform” are seen to behave do still seem to reinforce these ideas, so there has to be a kernel of truth to at least some of it.
That's getting dangerously close to the "gives others a bad name" nonsense... That's not a go at you for writing it but that sort of stuff does need to be countered. The example of helicopter evacuations etc isn't bad - how many happen at Glentress vs how many people do laps of the centre with no issues at all? I suspect it's in the very very low 0.something of a percent.*
*I admit I'm not the best person to write that, I've had 2 helicopter evacuations therefore MTBing is ridiculously dangerous. Or I'm shit at it.
actually quite a lax attitude to rules and regulations – classic case in point being riding on FPs.
Because no other cyclist is ever witnessed breaking rules, like riding on pavements, through red lights, the wrong way up one way streets, ignoring any road rules when in the safety of a sportive bunch... 😀
As a result (and as demonstrated over 4 sodding pages by TJ above) is that one person’s definition of MTB is not shared by others.
Woah! It's not TJ trying to limit the scope of what's called mountain biking!
The comparison with skiing is a valuable one IMO.
It's not an obviously 'open-to-all' sport in the way running or football are. You need equipment and terrain.
Same as skiing in that regard, but (ignoring time of year and geographical location) skiing is accessible to pretty much anyone with money. You can be inexperienced, unfit and own none of the equipment, but produce cash and time and skiing is quickly made available to you, with little effort. That's perhaps because - in order to make that situation possible - skiing is a very contrived environment, where the 'provider' has spent a large amount of money, so of course they need to make the 'functional' bits (lift tickets, equipment hire etc) easy to sort out in the way MTB doesn't yet manage.
To approach skiing's level of accessibility to the moneyed newbie, kit hire and instruction at recognised locations need to become way easier to sort out. That'll take a sizeable cash commitment and a strong build-it-and-they-will-come belief.
Biggest barrier in this country IMO though is probably dirt. You get pretty dirty pretty often doing this sport. Lots of people just don't like that.
Ta Scotroutes
So what can we do to change that if anything?
For me its get away from the elitist machismo bullshine that too often pervades these pages and in a wider sense. The idea that you need a gnarpoon worth thousands, that if you are not injuring yourself you are not trying hard enough. the idea you need all this special kit. IE once with the tandem at the top of spooky woods ( GT red) I was told by a bunch of fully armoured up lads that I couldn't ride down the red. Not a " have you been here before? are you sure?" but " You cannot ride that down there!"
To approach skiing’s level of accessibility to the moneyed newbie, kit hire and instruction at recognised locations need to become way easier to sort out. That’ll take a sizeable cash commitment and a strong build-it-and-they-will-come belief.
Tweed valley? Aviemore area? Lochaber?
These are perceptions, not necessarily the truth of things, but the way MTBing is presented both in its own dedicated Media and the wider press, as well as how those of us “in the uniform” are seen to behave do still seem to reinforce these ideas, so there has to be a kernel of truth to at least some of it. So what can we do to change that if anything?
We can be nice and say hi. It's about individuals, but you can't change mountain bikers en masse. And even if you did, I'm not sure it would make a blind bit of difference. It's a bit like mountaineering, Mr and Mrs Average basically just view you as a weird alien beings. It's not hostility as far as I can see, just incomprehension.
I'm also unconvinced that access rights have anything much to do with the image that mountain biker do or don't have. The main obstacle as far as rights of way go anyway, is our barking mad, arbitrary, archaic system. And mostly walkers don't care anyway, as long as you behave in a friendly and courteous way. Trail building's different again, but arguably the problem there is our land ownership system rather than some entrenched hatred of mountain bikers.
For me its get away from the elitist machismo bullshine that too often pervades these pages and in a wider sense.
I agree to a certain extent, but we are getting constant comparisons with skiing on this thread. I'd suggest that surfing might be where we want to be. (In every sense! 😀 )
I’d suggest that surfing might be where we want to be.
I said this on page 1, but I'll add my support for that viewpoint again. I think we're way closer to the surfers than to any other 'extreme' outdoors subculture.
BadlyWiredDog
I’m also unconvinced that access rights have anything much to do with the image that mountain biker do or don’t have. The main obstacle as far as rights of way go anyway, is our barking mad, arbitrary, archaic system.
Within England and Wales the main barrier is that landowners are seen to have some duty of care to people on their land and snowflakes that complain/threaten if they feel something isn't safe enough and sue of they have an accident.
On one level not everyone is public spirited enough to want to see hoards of walkers, bikers, horse riders using their land as a leisure facility but many QUANGO's who manage a lot of the land are somewhere between genuinely concerned and using it as an excuse to restrict and where possible remove MTB (and walkers and horse riders)
Some land management QUANGO's flip flop ... some sorta support MTB and some see the public using the land they manage as something to be minimised. Ultimately it doesn't matter as the THREAT is real and they can use it as they like and even if 9/10 people on a board want to allow more MTB access it only takes 1 to bring up being sued for millions by a single snowflake to block.
This whole idea that you can MTB without a few minor injuries is extremely harmful especially when combined with the idea if someone crashes and hurts themselves someone must be to blame.
cookeea
It’s all sort of irrelevant. Really the issue just comes down to the fact that MTBing is a diverse hobby/sport, but those public perceptions are becoming a limiting factor if you want to grow it.
I don't want to GROW it .. more people = more snowflakes = more people who sue if someone didn't sweep the trails for them and they have a tumble = less trails and sanitized trails.
The idea you can ride carefully inside your limits and unless someone else has screwed up by not filling a rut or moving a stone you will never crash and have a minor injury is the most destructive idea to trail access and trail diversity.
I don’t want to GROW it
Don't be a gatekeeper, they never help anything be better.
Within England and Wales the main barrier is that landowners are seen to have some duty of care to people on their land and snowflakes that complain/threaten if they feel something isn’t safe enough and sue of they have an accident.
There's laws that cover all that stuff. You can't sue simply because you fell off. There's a test of 'reasonable forseeability' and it can be applied on both sides.
If some forms of MTB were a more popular and mainstream thing we'd be less of a weird minority and have more of a voice to help with access and landowners seeing sense or reason in what the law actually means for them, more people drowning out the odd whinger, all in all we'd have more people enjoying more trails, more businesses serving people at those places, etc.
I don’t want to GROW it
I guess even MTB can have its own version of NIBMY's.
I don’t want to GROW it .. more people = more snowflakes = more people who sue if someone didn’t sweep the trails for them and they have a tumble = less trails and sanitized trails.
Total crock o shite.
That's really not what happens as MTBing gets more normalised.
Stop trying to pretend that you're more gnar than the next guy and no one else is welcome.
It won't help anyone.
I’d suggest that surfing might be where we want to be
as someone who’s surfed in this country for the best part of 30yrs, that’s a terrible idea.
Until it gets big, it’s so busy at any good spot from dawn til dusk. Forecasting is so good that an app tells you where to be and when. Wetsuits are so good the depths of winter aren’t a challenge in hypothermia management. All the things are in place to open it up to the masses. Lots of people have made a lot of money. It’s not improved the surf.
The biggest danger in surfing now isn’t the waves, it’s other people.
jameso
There’s laws that cover all that stuff. You can’t sue simply because you fell off. There’s a test of ‘reasonable forseeability’ and it can be applied on both sides.
If some forms of MTB were a more popular and mainstream thing we’d be less of a weird minority and have more of a voice to help with access and landowners seeing sense or reason in what the law actually means for them, more people drowning out the odd whinger, all in all we’d have more people enjoying more trails, more businesses serving people at those places, etc.
Yes there are laws and legislation but why would any land owner or quango land manage org want the risk?
Even if they win which isn't ever a forgone conclusion they still had to go to court and defend allowing people on their land.
Charities are being threatened by these snowflakes ... saying how they will be expert witnesses again and make sure they get sued for millions.
Many of the quango's don't even want the public on our land they manage... they see it as theirs when they are simply management organisations but they simply see an excuse to ban MTB and they take it. Non of this is fact based either, TAG do a lot of work monitoring .. the MOD just ignore it and build illegal fences.
singlespeedstu
Stop trying to pretend that you’re more gnar than the next guy and no one else is welcome.
There is nothing gnar about it... anything that can be called MTB is going to have accidents and the odd major one or death. If people aren't comfortable with that they can do knitting or jigsaws.
Total crock o shite.
That’s really not what happens as MTBing gets more normalised.
It's exactly what is happening... snowflakes making threats about suing landowners.
Yes there are laws and legislation but why would any land owner or quango land manage org want the risk?
Even if they win which isn’t ever a forgone conclusion they still had to go to court and defend allowing people on their land.
Charities are being threatened by these snowflakes … saying how they will be expert witnesses again and make sure they get sued for millions.
Citation needed.
How many people / organisations / charities have actually been sued by someone falling off? How many have tried to sue MTBers for using the land? I mean, I don't have the figures either but it has to be vanishingly small surely?
There was the famous case of the trail guide being sued when a client died on BKB in the Surrey Hills, I remember that one.
It’s exactly what is happening… snowflakes making threats about suing landowners.
Examples? Alongside likelihood of it ever actually happening?
crazy-legs
Citation needed.
How many people / organisations / charities have actually been sued by someone falling off? How many have tried to sue MTBers for using the land? I mean, I don’t have the figures either but it has to be vanishingly small surely?There was the famous case of the trail guide being sued when a client died on BKB in the Surrey Hills, I remember that one.
It's in the Surrey Hills MTB FB group amongst other places... someone claiming to have been an expert witness on the case you mentioned threatening Friends of Hurtwood and the trail builders personally (we know who you are) threats. He's claiming to have written to Mark Beaumont (aka friends of hurtwood) threatening him as well.
It should be a simple open and shut "you chose to ride an MTB .. you got injured" (in this case badly)...
(one thread is under a post by Simon Light (who I can mention since he isn't going to sue me) )
I say claiming because it doesn't actually matter if this snowflake is genuinely the expert witness.. the threat is being sued for millions against a charity.
Examples? Alongside likelihood of it ever actually happening?
It doesn't need to be likely for the likes of the MOD/Crown Estates etc. to use it as an excuse or to scare otherwise generous landowners and charities.
Growth or no growth you're going to get belters and barrackroom lawyers threatening to sue. It's inescapable because some people are ****ing idiots and they also ride bikes.
You can't mitigate for all eventualities, and much like you're saying riders have to suck it up in regards to partaking in a hobby that carries a degree of inherent physical risk, the same goes for trail associations in regards to people having a pop at them. When you build trails, fight for access the risk is others are going to disagree, or look to hold you or landowners responsible for unfavourable outcomes.
You act like hard-core riders are virtuous and accept the risks without question. Which you and I both know is utter bollocks.
@stevextc.
So you're saying because of one case that newcomers shouldn't be encouraged in to MTB?
Bizarre attitude.
Do you think folks that were riding before you started had the same attitude towards you?
How were they to know you weren't a "snowflake"?
I used to have a mate that showed the same attitude back in the mid 80's.
Our riding group were all ex MX/Enduro riders who got into MTB from the beginning.
Said ex mate had the same "snowflake" attitude to anyone else we came across while riding that hadn't grown up riding MX and in his mind didn't belong...
It was pretty embarrassing TBH and most of us stopped riding with him because of it.
So you’re saying because of one case that newcomers shouldn’t be encouraged in to MTB?
No I'm saying we absolutely shouldn't try and "reframe MTB" as something you aren't going to get hurt/cold/wet/hot...because then it sets unrealistic expectations.
Planting the idea that it's "safe in a snowflake sense" is only going to BOTH attract people who are going to look for someone to sue when it turns out it's MTB and provide a backdrop of expectation for courts
There is a real chance (near certainty) someone (sooner or later) gets hurt on any trail whatever you do.
Sadly the way English and Welsh law works is through case law... so all it takes is one case not that is the concern of Crown Estates or MOD, they just want an excuse to bypass their obligation in public access.
However look wider at places like Fleet dirt jumps... Hart council took a punt and did something incredible (IMHO).
Yes people get hurt.. of course people get hurt and they should EXPECT to get hurt sooner or later.
If MTB is reframed into "safe for snowflakes" then people will be arguing that the council should have made it "safe", you see this in children's playgrounds where council's close them in case a child has a minor injury or they put that foam stuff down.
So you’re saying because of one case that newcomers shouldn’t be encouraged in to MTB?
No I’m saying we absolutely shouldn’t try and “reframe MTB”
But you said this
I don’t want to GROW it
Sounds like you don't want to welcome new people to MTB
TBH your constant over use of one phrase makes you sound like someone that's not worth listening to anyway.
as someone who’s surfed in this country for the best part of 30yrs, that’s a terrible idea.
Until it gets big, it’s so busy at any good spot from dawn til dusk. Forecasting is so good that an app tells you where to be and when. Wetsuits are so good the depths of winter aren’t a challenge in hypothermia management. All the things are in place to open it up to the masses. Lots of people have made a lot of money. It’s not improved the surf.
The biggest danger in surfing now isn’t the waves, it’s other people.
is quite funny when the post immediately above yours is:
I don’t want to GROW it .. more people = more snowflakes = more people who sue if someone didn’t sweep the trails for them and they have a tumble = less trails and sanitized trails.
Total crock o shite.
Fwiw, the few times I surfed this year - a couple of beaches in Gower - it was a lot quieter than when I started about 20 years ago. I may have been lucky, though. 😀
You're missing my point though, I think. I meant we should be aiming towards the same attitude as surfing. It's accessible, easy to get into for any age or sex or colour and seen as a bit of an adventure if you don't live surrounded by surfers, like I do. Compared to the elitist, once annually in an expensive destination thing that is skiing, it's a far better comparison.
It’s in the Surrey Hills MTB FB group
I bet that attracts some proper FB bile, Mr Vanderham rivalling levels. Surrey Hills were a great example of how we're our own worst enemy, all those diggers doing whatever they liked for so long.
Sounds like you don’t want to welcome new people to MTB
MTB just doesn't need more snowflakes.... in fact neither does the whole country.
TBH your constant over use of one phrase makes you sound like someone that’s not worth listening to anyway.
Sadly the swear filter probably won't met me describe the scum properly..
If MTB is reframed into “safe for snowflakes” then people will be arguing that the council should have made it “safe”, you see this in children’s playgrounds where council’s close them in case a child has a minor injury or they put that foam stuff down.
I just don't believe this - I know it's all very popular to go on about "elf'n'safety gorn mad!" but humans put themselves and others at risk every day in perfectly normal activities. Driving. Pretty much any form of exercise. Flying. DIY...
Some of those things are more heavily regulated and insured than others but there's a framework in place to minimise risk and to compensate if/when things do go wrong.
No-one is going round suing landowners left, right and centre. There might be very occasional threats to do so which could be sorted quickly via a good loud "**** off!" because honestly, it is never* going to get to that stage.
*maybe not "never" but so statistically unlikely as to be covered by that description.
There’s laws that cover all that stuff. You can’t sue simply because you fell off. There’s a test of ‘reasonable forseeability’ and it can be applied on both sides.
If some forms of MTB were a more popular and mainstream thing we’d be less of a weird minority and have more of a voice to help with access and landowners seeing sense or reason in what the law actually means for them, more people drowning out the odd whinger, all in all we’d have more people enjoying more trails, more businesses serving people at those places, etc.
And also absolutely everything that @jameso said ^^
Sadly the swear filter probably won’t met me describe the scum properly..
Seriously dude. If a discussion about what we call "mountain biking" is making you this angry, maybe it's time you took up another hobby.
Surrey Hills were a great example of how we’re our own worst enemy, all those diggers doing whatever they liked for so long.
Indeed - not content with being essentially allowed to ride our bikes wherever we liked, our community decided to start digging holes, cutting down trees, building jumps and generally acting like *****
scotroutes
Seriously dude. If a discussion about what we call “mountain biking” is making you this angry, maybe it’s time you took up another hobby.
It's not a discussion about what we call mountain biking, it's a discussion about changing what we call mountain biking, specifically to attract people that don't like the idea of mountain biking.
It's like doing touch rugby to attract people who don't like contact sports.... when there are numerous non contact sports they can just go and do. Not that basket ball is intrinsically "safer" than rugby... people still break ankles and wrists because well... that's life.
The problem or problems is/are it is based on a lie if people are led to believe they are partaking in some activity they won't get a few minor injuries, cold, wet or sweaty in summer.
No matter what you do send 1000 people of any skill level down a groomed green run 1000 times and someone will have an accident. It's then
a) How they react (I got told, expect etc. this is a "safe" activity)
b) How courts react (what expectations they had)
c) How trail associations, landowners etc. fear the courts might react.
The recent furore over a couple of avoidable tiny gap jumps on private land managed by a charity shows that the trail associations can be bullied into focussing on c
jameso
Surrey Hills were a great example of how we’re our own worst enemy, all those diggers doing whatever they liked for so long.
No-one is forcing ANYONE to ride features.... if someone doesn't like it ride slow and push/ride around.
Who do you think the official diggers need to justify themselves to anyway?
If you didn't ride it before and you don't like risking a bit of a tumble ride it slowly first BECAUSE that's MTB.. there might be a rock or log fallen on the trail BECAUSE that's MTB... They are only a bike length and case friendly anyway so no-one is going to injure themselves worse than just coming off on a corner and less than running into a tree.
Sadly it may knock a second off some strava times...
it’s become a discussion about changing what [s]we[/s] I call mountain biking,
FTFY. As has been pointed out numerous times already, it's only you that has adopted some sort of gatekeeping role. The rest of us are happy that mountain biking is basically just riding a mountain bike, wherever that is.
I’d concede, he’ll batter you with word count.
