After
reading Access Action piece in Dirt Rag #167,
I thought about it for quite some time. I learned from it, Mr.
Maguire made some excellent points, and I realized some things I
hadn't thought about before. However, I have to disagree with what I
perceive was the intent of the piece, which is the defense of making
easier trails. The part that really bothered me was:
On page 68, 2nd paragraph, He says “But according to a 2010 National Sporting Goods Association survey, more than half of those people fall into the “occasional rider” category, meaning they only get out 6-24 times a year.”
Mr. Maguire then goes on to say “If we want more trails, then we need more riders. And if we want more riders, then trails, or at least new trails, need to be less about penalties for failure and more about guaranteed fun.”
These statements really bothered me, I believe this kind of thinking is incorrect and ultimately weakens and hurts the sport overall.
First off...if more than half of the people who rode last year only get out 6-24 times a year, why should they dictate and guide what our trails are like? Why should those of us who ride almost daily all year long have to ride trails meant for someone who gets out maybe once a month? Those of us who ride almost daily all year long are the ones who actually maintain and care for the trails, the stewards of the trails that the “occasional rider” come to enjoy (and sometimes ruin due to lack of skill), and you propose we cater to them?
There are no other sports, hobbies, or interests that would do that.
(want to talk about the business side of it? How much money does the occasional rider pump into the industry? Mr. “I rode my bike twenty times this year!” doesn't ride enough to need new brake pads, much less buy a new bike or upgrade what he has, but that is another conversation.)
The claim “If we want more trails, then we need more riders,” is a convincing battle cry, but is just not true, it's a logical fallacy. One is not conditional upon the other. The amount of trails are not directly proportional to the amount of riders. Also, the claim “if we want more riders, then trails, or at least new trails, need to be less about penalties for failure and more about guaranteed fun,” while sounding plausible, also just isn't true. Another logical fallacy.
I am not saying make mountain biking an elitist, locals only, closed sport. Not at all. Instead of lowering the bar and making trails super easy, and boring, to attract and accommodate people who may ride their bike ten times a year and don't really care one way or another, and have no real interest in it, what if trails were not dumbed down, and people had to rise to the challenge? Then you can weed out the “tourists,” those who dabble and don't have respect for the trails, those who ride off trails, cause damage, and sanitize trails. Then, those who truly like mountain biking will stay with it. You would then end up with a higher caliber of rider, and more people who actually care about the land and the trails, and people who will take better care of what we have.
Again, I'm not trying to be an elitist, I just don't subscribe to the entitlement attitude that seems pervasive nowadays, where everyone is entitled to everything, and it's their “right” to be allowed to do things they aren't capable of just because “they want to.” There are many things I would love to do, but I know my limits and I know I don't care enough to put the time and effort into learning to do them, so I don't, and I don't complain about standards being too high for me.
When I first started mountain biking back in 1994, I was the occasional once a week, once every other week rider, I was the guy you are trying to attract and appease. The trails were difficult for me. I fell and walked more than rode, but it was fun, it was something I wanted to do, and I kept coming back to ride and learn and improve. I didn't complain that the trails were too difficult, I got better to ride the trails. I did have friends who tried riding with me, it was too difficult for them and they didn't like biking enough to pursue, so they went on and did other things. No hard feelings on anyone's side. I know for a fact I am not the only one with that story, and now we are the ones who ride all the time and are quite active in trail access action. Imagine that, harder trails made people appreciate what they have and made a group of people who actually care about the sport.
Also, I am not saying every trail needs to be a super difficult techy “double black diamond” (as I hear the occasional rider call them, because they know the term from skiing, not cycling). We have one of the easiest and simultaneously most fun trails I have ever seen. I have seen kids on Striders riding it as well as guys on six plus inch travel bikes, and everyone enjoys it. Trails can be both fun and easy, but there is no need to make all new trails “accessible for everyone.” How does the occasional rider improve? How do they learn to huck, or do step-ups, or gap, or whatever, if they don't have the trails to learn them on? What if you put the occasional drop or obstacle on a “easy” trail? People who can't ride it can dismount, walk the six steps past it, and keep on riding. They can then either 1) learn the skills to ride it and improve and get more joy out of riding or 2) just keep walking over/around the obstacle, and know they are in a sport that requires that. If it makes them stop riding, then perhaps they were never really into mountain biking to begin with, and perhaps it's best for everyone involved.
I guess I just default to the philosophy of you have to put forth some effort to get a reward, and anything easily gained is not appreciated or worth it. That is how I feel about your sentiments towards trails and trail building. Making trails easy so they are accessible to everyone, making them easy to pander to people who wouldn't otherwise ride a mountain bike attracts and creates riders who don't appreciate the trails, take the trails for granted, and don't really care about them. How many occasional riders are doing trail maintenance, or work for trail advocacy? They ride six times a year, how invested are they really? And you are worried about scaring them off with difficult trails?
What if the easy trails are what's keeping many riders from getting into the sport? What if people want a challenge, but they ride a boring trail and it turns them off? What if a more difficult challenging trail is what would spark their interest and keep them coming back for more, much like it did me and others I know? Is there a chance you have it backward?
Do you honestly want to see hundreds of people who don't have the skills to keep their bike on a trail crowding and damaging existing trails so you can build more lackluster milquetoast trails for those hoards to ruin? I would rather see a lower number of cyclists who are skilled and who actually care about mountain biking and trails than a higher number of people who have a mountain bike and ride it sometimes. I would also rather have ten fun trails that are worth riding than fifty boring soulless trails that aren't worth one pedal stroke.
How about this - Mountain Biking ISN'T for everyone. And that is Ok, there is nothing wrong with that. People can try it, and if they don't like it, no harm, no foul. Pandering to them in hopes of getting them to like it just seems sad and pathetic. By all means, build easy fun trails for those who want and enjoy them. But build challenging fun trails, and don't be afraid to put a drop or ledge or step up or some challenging obstacle in an “easy” trail to give it spice, and add something interesting to it. Just do not make all the trails easy, and don't take a fun trail and make it “accessible” for the person who will ride it once.
Trails should be fun. Make trails too easy and they aren't fun. Give people more credit, build fun trails, let people rise to the challenge.
On page 68, 2nd paragraph, He says “But according to a 2010 National Sporting Goods Association survey, more than half of those people fall into the “occasional rider” category, meaning they only get out 6-24 times a year.”
Mr. Maguire then goes on to say “If we want more trails, then we need more riders. And if we want more riders, then trails, or at least new trails, need to be less about penalties for failure and more about guaranteed fun.”
These statements really bothered me, I believe this kind of thinking is incorrect and ultimately weakens and hurts the sport overall.
First off...if more than half of the people who rode last year only get out 6-24 times a year, why should they dictate and guide what our trails are like? Why should those of us who ride almost daily all year long have to ride trails meant for someone who gets out maybe once a month? Those of us who ride almost daily all year long are the ones who actually maintain and care for the trails, the stewards of the trails that the “occasional rider” come to enjoy (and sometimes ruin due to lack of skill), and you propose we cater to them?
There are no other sports, hobbies, or interests that would do that.
(want to talk about the business side of it? How much money does the occasional rider pump into the industry? Mr. “I rode my bike twenty times this year!” doesn't ride enough to need new brake pads, much less buy a new bike or upgrade what he has, but that is another conversation.)
The claim “If we want more trails, then we need more riders,” is a convincing battle cry, but is just not true, it's a logical fallacy. One is not conditional upon the other. The amount of trails are not directly proportional to the amount of riders. Also, the claim “if we want more riders, then trails, or at least new trails, need to be less about penalties for failure and more about guaranteed fun,” while sounding plausible, also just isn't true. Another logical fallacy.
I am not saying make mountain biking an elitist, locals only, closed sport. Not at all. Instead of lowering the bar and making trails super easy, and boring, to attract and accommodate people who may ride their bike ten times a year and don't really care one way or another, and have no real interest in it, what if trails were not dumbed down, and people had to rise to the challenge? Then you can weed out the “tourists,” those who dabble and don't have respect for the trails, those who ride off trails, cause damage, and sanitize trails. Then, those who truly like mountain biking will stay with it. You would then end up with a higher caliber of rider, and more people who actually care about the land and the trails, and people who will take better care of what we have.
Again, I'm not trying to be an elitist, I just don't subscribe to the entitlement attitude that seems pervasive nowadays, where everyone is entitled to everything, and it's their “right” to be allowed to do things they aren't capable of just because “they want to.” There are many things I would love to do, but I know my limits and I know I don't care enough to put the time and effort into learning to do them, so I don't, and I don't complain about standards being too high for me.
When I first started mountain biking back in 1994, I was the occasional once a week, once every other week rider, I was the guy you are trying to attract and appease. The trails were difficult for me. I fell and walked more than rode, but it was fun, it was something I wanted to do, and I kept coming back to ride and learn and improve. I didn't complain that the trails were too difficult, I got better to ride the trails. I did have friends who tried riding with me, it was too difficult for them and they didn't like biking enough to pursue, so they went on and did other things. No hard feelings on anyone's side. I know for a fact I am not the only one with that story, and now we are the ones who ride all the time and are quite active in trail access action. Imagine that, harder trails made people appreciate what they have and made a group of people who actually care about the sport.
Also, I am not saying every trail needs to be a super difficult techy “double black diamond” (as I hear the occasional rider call them, because they know the term from skiing, not cycling). We have one of the easiest and simultaneously most fun trails I have ever seen. I have seen kids on Striders riding it as well as guys on six plus inch travel bikes, and everyone enjoys it. Trails can be both fun and easy, but there is no need to make all new trails “accessible for everyone.” How does the occasional rider improve? How do they learn to huck, or do step-ups, or gap, or whatever, if they don't have the trails to learn them on? What if you put the occasional drop or obstacle on a “easy” trail? People who can't ride it can dismount, walk the six steps past it, and keep on riding. They can then either 1) learn the skills to ride it and improve and get more joy out of riding or 2) just keep walking over/around the obstacle, and know they are in a sport that requires that. If it makes them stop riding, then perhaps they were never really into mountain biking to begin with, and perhaps it's best for everyone involved.
I guess I just default to the philosophy of you have to put forth some effort to get a reward, and anything easily gained is not appreciated or worth it. That is how I feel about your sentiments towards trails and trail building. Making trails easy so they are accessible to everyone, making them easy to pander to people who wouldn't otherwise ride a mountain bike attracts and creates riders who don't appreciate the trails, take the trails for granted, and don't really care about them. How many occasional riders are doing trail maintenance, or work for trail advocacy? They ride six times a year, how invested are they really? And you are worried about scaring them off with difficult trails?
What if the easy trails are what's keeping many riders from getting into the sport? What if people want a challenge, but they ride a boring trail and it turns them off? What if a more difficult challenging trail is what would spark their interest and keep them coming back for more, much like it did me and others I know? Is there a chance you have it backward?
Do you honestly want to see hundreds of people who don't have the skills to keep their bike on a trail crowding and damaging existing trails so you can build more lackluster milquetoast trails for those hoards to ruin? I would rather see a lower number of cyclists who are skilled and who actually care about mountain biking and trails than a higher number of people who have a mountain bike and ride it sometimes. I would also rather have ten fun trails that are worth riding than fifty boring soulless trails that aren't worth one pedal stroke.
How about this - Mountain Biking ISN'T for everyone. And that is Ok, there is nothing wrong with that. People can try it, and if they don't like it, no harm, no foul. Pandering to them in hopes of getting them to like it just seems sad and pathetic. By all means, build easy fun trails for those who want and enjoy them. But build challenging fun trails, and don't be afraid to put a drop or ledge or step up or some challenging obstacle in an “easy” trail to give it spice, and add something interesting to it. Just do not make all the trails easy, and don't take a fun trail and make it “accessible” for the person who will ride it once.
Trails should be fun. Make trails too easy and they aren't fun. Give people more credit, build fun trails, let people rise to the challenge.
