Prejudice 1: Bikers destroy the paths and increase erosion.
What BIKE fans say on Facebook:
"Yeah sure...bikers are bad people...better tonnes of oil in the sea then!!!" "Could be! There are certainly black sheep - they exist in every group. But one fact cannot be refuted: MTBers also keep hiking trails that are not travelled so often free and accessible. If you follow the tracks on foot, you will often find that the path is wonderful to walk on." "Yes, really bad fellows, these mountain bikers! Ride their fat bikes into furrows in the ground so deep that the poor forestry workers almost get stuck in them with their harvesters." "Those who ride off with their rear wheel locked due to their inability to ride are already making erosion gullies - but otherwise?" "What I find much worse is all the rubbish in the forest that is carelessly thrown away. Nature takes care of the tracks itself!"
And what is really true?
The answer is yes. Countless scientific papers have been written on the subject. Even if the bike lobby likes to cherry-pick studies with the result that mountain bike tyres roll more gently through the terrain than the tread soles of hikers, the reality is different. "If you just roll through the forest, mountain biking is no more harmful than hiking," says Dr Stefan Siebert from the German Sport University in Cologne, "but if it's downhill, that's no longer true.
Especially with aggressive riding techniques, mountain bike tyres tear up the ground and the vicious circle of erosion begins. Anyone who has seen busy downhill trails will be able to confirm this," says Siebert. But as with everything, the decisive factor is how busy the trail is with bikers. And your riding style can also help to protect the trails. Curve drifts, locked wheels and very heavy braking are not part of this.
Prejudice 2: Bikers frighten wild animals such as deer, roe deer, foxes and hares.
What BIKE fans say on Facebook in addition:
"Absolute rubbish. With so much disturbance in the forest, such as the wind turbines, the animals get used to the traffic in the forest. Especially as there are enough machines in the forest, sometimes 24 hours a day, harvesting wood or clearing storm damage.
You just shouldn't drive over wildlife meadows." "Always stay relaxed, before we see the game, they've already spotted us and as long as you don't shout around in the forest like a mentally ill person, nothing can happen. When it's a driven hunt in autumn, you can hardly call it humane, as the game is chased through the forest by the dogs and shot as a thank you. But it's always easier to blame others than to rethink your own behaviour. Everyone should show consideration for nature."
What is really true?
Basically, the more retreats wildlife has, the better off it is. Every new path through nature restricts these retreats - but it doesn't matter whether there are hikers or bikers on the way. "As long as people stay on the signposted paths, the wildlife doesn't care," says district master hunter Hartwig Görtler.
But to what extent do bikers and hikers actually harm wildlife? In general, people trigger fear in animals. The result: a flight reflex. "This can become a problem, especially in winter, when the animals shut down their organism and need rest to save energy," says Görtler. If the animals have to flee all the time, this leads to weight loss and often even starvation.
Who does more damage? Bikers or hikers? The decisive factor is the number of bikers or hikers. If you still want to differentiate, the biker comes off worse - because they move faster, which causes the wildlife to become more agitated. "But hikers with dogs are even more of a problem for the animals - because dogs signal danger," says Görtler.
Allegation 3: Bikers harm the environment.
What BIKE fans say on Facebook in addition:
"There are already beginners (or even pros in the promo video) who slide down mountains with their rear wheel locked. But the vast majority of mountain bikers leave no lasting traces and no rubbish."
The answer:
Which hobby is more environmentally friendly: hiking or biking? With less equipment and lower CO2 emissions in the production of sports equipment, hikers certainly cut a better figure. On the other hand, the question of whether bikers cause more damage to flora and fauna than hikers is not so easy to answer. At least many accusations can be easily dispelled: "No, there is no evidence that bikers run over rare animal species on a significant scale or that plant species die out because of us," says DIMB frontman Heiko Mittelstädt.
Soil compaction is also a popular argument put forward by conservationists, but here, too, we can be surprised. After all, it is in the nature of trails to be compacted - because people walk, ride or mountain bike on them. A scientific study by the University of Ljubljana shows that plants next to the trail are not damaged by passing bikers. The situation is of course different when it comes to cross-country riding - even bikers agree that this actually harms flora and fauna. However, the question remains: which biker rides through the undergrowth?
To summarise, the answer is: neither. Hikers and bikers harm plants and rare animals in equal measure - hardly at all, as long as both stay on the paths. What we didn't ask about, however: The damage caused by the forestry industry with its harvester tracks. But anyone who has ever seen this in the forest knows that.
Allegation 4: Bikers drive up health insurance contributions.
Bike fans commented on Facebook:
"Touring biking could be a kind of anti-cigarette: Lower health insurance costs and more pension payments in return. But since they also pay in more because of their increased job performance, that's fine." "Yes they do, the nasty pikers! I, for example, deliberately hit myself in the mouth every 10th trip in the hope of driving up costs..."
Is that really true?
The accusation is that bikers' crashes, injuries and high treatment costs increase the premiums of all policyholders. This is wrong, at least in comparison. On the contrary: mountain bikers are among the healthy premium payers who cause low costs on average. Although hospitalisation is not cheap, it is not a significant factor.
Serious injuries (broken bones) account for only a tenth of all mountain bike injuries. In most cases, it remains with skin abrasions, bruises and sprains. "If a bone does break, it's usually the collarbone," writes Dr Karlheinz Zeilberger on the internet platform Netdoktor. Press spokesman Athanasios Drougias from Barmer GEK says: "The clear cost drivers are the typical widespread diseases such as cancer, cardiovascular diseases, obesity and alcohol consumption. Mountain bikers are completely negligible".
Laurin Lehner
Editor
