Trails in Bavaria: Closures imminent [Update]

Update 29 January 2021

As already announced, the DIMB now together with the cycling organisations BDR, BRV and ADFC The Bavarian government has sent a joint letter to several Bavarian ministries to express its concerns about the administrative regulation published in December. The statement, which fortunately also included the four Bavarian Tourism organisations Upper Bavaria Munich, Eastern Bavaria, Franconia and Allgäu / Bavarian Swabia have signed is not public. In a short News report from the DIMB states that the aim is to make a joint appeal to politicians to avoid "the risk of a large number of disproportionate and legally problematic bans and restrictions on cycling". Only the German Alpine Club (DAV) did not sign the letter to the relevant ministries in Bavaria.

Update 22 December 2020

In a short Update advises the DIMB currently refrains from unauthorised actions or petitions against the new administrative regulations of the Bavarian Nature Conservation Act. Instead, the German Mountain Bikers' Association, together with the Bavarian Cycling Association, the DAV, the ADFC and the Board of Trustees for Sport and Nature, is endeavouring to take a united approach. The DIMB writes that the associations will "jointly approach the ministry and ask for an explanation and clarification". The German Alpine Association has now published its statementwhich was sent to the Bavarian Ministry of the Environment in advance. Like the DIMB, the DAV had criticised key points of the draft. The DAV "does not agree with some points of the administrative regulation that has now been published and does not support them". An initial interim result is not expected before the beginning/middle of January, when a joint statement will be issued.

Trek has also responded to the new regulations in the Free State of Bavaria with an official statement "The trail is the goal!". The US bicycle manufacturer, which also "Love Trails - Respect Rules" campaign wants to do more for MTB sport in the DACH region in the future - both financially and at a political level. Here is the detailed statement:

Manufacturing and selling mountain bikes is one thing. It is another to think about and show commitment to ensuring that an infrastructure is in place for their use. However, the current development in Bavaria, where the Ministry of the Environment has issued new administrative regulations, shows how necessary this commitment has long been on the part of the mountain bike industry. And that we as an industry can and must do even more here. The new Bavarian administrative regulations threaten to close the trails in many places in Bavaria, which are probably the most important element of mountain biking for us: trails!
At TREK, we have been contributing to the creation, maintenance and preservation of trails and trail networks for some time now. However, so far we have largely done this in the USA.
In the DACH region, we already support IMBA Switzerland. However, as part of our "Trail Advocacy Programme", we also try to support other initiatives and help where it makes sense.
However, the administrative changes in the Free State of Bavaria now show that our commitment in this direction alone is no longer enough! This is emphasised all too clearly by the imminent possibility that the administration is preparing to close existing trails for mountain bikers - from the Bavarian Alps to the forests of the low mountain ranges.
Even if there is still a lack of alternative options for mountain bikers to switch to, it requires political commitment and a lobby for the sport of mountain biking in addition to local or regional legal trail building activities and their support. The question must be asked at the decisive points as to why one user group in particular should be categorically excluded? Without sitting down together to work out generally acceptable, sustainable and solution-oriented concepts that work perfectly well in other parts of the world (often simply in neighbouring countries)?
We would like to emphasise clearly and unequivocally that we, as part of the mountain bike industry, are already involved in both directions and will be increasingly involved in the future.
That we offer targeted support and provide financial support for the realisation of specific infrastructure projects on the one hand, but that we should also give our backing to committees that work at a political level to find solutions in the interests of mountain biking on the other.
It's no secret that we (all of us) are only at the very beginning with this task and our desire to become active. We are therefore more than grateful for additional input, suggestions and contacts on these topics. And we see the exchange and networking of mountain bikers with each other alone as an enormous opportunity for the common goal: trails!
But much more than that. We are also open to intensifying our financial support for initiatives that are actively committed to creating and maintaining a mountain bike-friendly infrastructure - not only, but in view of the current situation, especially in Bavaria.

The Bavarian State Ministry of the Environment and Consumer Protection has issued a new administrative regulation for the Bavarian Nature Conservation Act, which largely relates to the right of cyclists to access nature and the suitability of trails for mountain bikers. The instructions for interpreting the law are valid from 16 December 2020. The announcement, which is peppered with paragraphs, is called Implementation of the Bavarian Nature Conservation Act; Part 6 "Outdoor recreation". But what exactly does this mean for bikers?

Are all trails in Bavaria now generally forbidden for mountain bikers?

No. But it is now much easier to enforce road closures with the new right of access. Previously, it was possible to use "suitable" paths in Bavaria. A very vague term for the jurisdiction, because in principle everyone could decide for themselves whether a path was "suitable". The new administrative regulations are now intended to create an "objective" determination of navigability, which can be more easily penalised by the authorities in the event of non-compliance.

Which routes are now threatened by possible closures?

The good news is that a blanket two-metre rule, as exists in Baden-Württemberg, was rejected "for constitutional reasons". The bad news is: It could affect all roads, ...

• ... whose "soil surface is loosened, thus increasing the risk of soil erosion and soil erosion along the way".
• ... that are steep, winding and exposed.
• ... that are so narrow that when they meet, one party has to step off the path into the green to let the other pass.

In principle, this applies to all trails in the Alpine region.

How do I know if a path is closed?

Road closures must be clearly labelled with a sign.

Who is authorised to put up a prohibition sign?

The lower and higher nature conservation authorities, but also the landowners. However, the latter must have the closure registered with the relevant district authority and the reason for the closure should be stated on the signage. However, bikers must accept any ban, even if there are doubts as to whether the ban is covered by the district authority. However, it is still possible to lodge a complaint.

The bike may be confiscated in the event of offences. When is this measure used?

The threat of fines and bike confiscation were already included in the "old" law. However, confiscation of the bike is only the last resort; as a rule, administrative offences are punished with fines.

Is there any way to counteract this administrative order?

Unfortunately not. The DIMB, as well as the DAV, the Bavarian Cycling Federation and the ADFC have jointly developed before the announcement on 26.11.20 with submissions tries to at least soften this regulation. Not least because not all points are clear and some of them contradict each other. Unfortunately, however, the ARGE (Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Bergbauernfragen) has largely prevailed with its arguments.

What can each individual do?

The above-mentioned associations are working flat out on a joint approach. The first prohibition signs are not expected before spring. Until then, we can only appeal to all bikers: Stick to the trail rules (>> to the "Love Trails - Respect Rules" campaign) and avoid any confrontation that plays into the hands of MTB opponents. And: Strengthens the DIMB with your membership (24 euros per year)!

Heiko Mittelstädt: "I expect significantly more prohibition signs"

BIKE: The administrative regulation of the Bavarian Ministry of the Environment hit the MTB community like a bomb on 16 December. To what extent were you, as a mountain bike association, involved in the drafting of these administrative regulations?

Heiko Mittelstädt: The whole thing has been going on for over a year. We were initially invited to a first working group. We expressed our concerns for the first time back then. Shortly before the summer holidays, we received the first draft of the new administrative regulations. In September, together with the Bavarian Cycling Association, we then submitted a detailed statement, outlining in detail which points we strongly oppose and explaining our arguments. The German Alpine Club and the ADFC Bayern also submitted a statement. However, virtually none of the points were taken into account and adapted by the Ministry. The ministry did not respond to our proposals and arguments at all.

Will we see a wave of prohibition signs on Bavarian roads next year?

Initially, an administrative regulation is merely an instruction to the authorities on how the law is to be enforced. The law itself has remained the same. But yes, I expect that significantly more trails will be closed to mountain bikers due to prohibition signs. This is especially true for the Alpine region. This is because the administrative regulation also deals specifically with alpine terrain in many points. For example, on the subject of erosion, the frequency of use of trails or the combination of steepness and trail width. As the political pressure for this regulation also came from landowners in the Alpine region, I expect to see significantly more prohibition signs there.

Who is authorised to put up a prohibition sign for cyclists? Does the administrative regulation change anything?

If a landowner believes that a path is not suitable on the basis of the administrative regulation, he can close the path to cyclists. He must then report the closure to the local authority, which must check whether the closure is lawful. As we understand it, the process should be different: There you would first have to report a questionable path to the authority and if the OK comes, then a prohibition sign may be erected. The new regulation could lead to uncontrolled growth. When new prohibition signs are erected, you should therefore first ask the responsible authority whether the closure has been reported. Bikers can then contact us and we will take a closer look at the case. If necessary, we would also take legal action against the bike ban in individual cases.

The threat that mountain bikes may be confiscated and confiscated if the regulations are breached is causing a lot of fuss. What do you think?

Sure, that's a daunting sentence. But that was already the case before the new administrative regulation. Now, for the first time, it is explicitly stated and is causing quite a stir, partly because it only specifically mentions mountain bikes. However, confiscation must also be proportionate.

Significant restrictions and more bans: Do you still see something positive in the new administrative regulation?

There are some good things in there that have now been formalised for the first time. The beginning, for example, is very positive. It states that cycling is a sport with a high recreational value, which is guaranteed under constitutional law. Or that the term "path" includes all possible forms of paths. The regulation means there are fewer grey areas than before. For example, e-mountain bikes up to 25 km/h, which are explicitly equated with mountain bikes in the regulation. Or the sentence on trail width, which, according to the Bavarian Nature Conservation Act, is not suitable for assessing the suitability of a trail. That's why I don't want to completely reject it. But there are also many points in it that we see quite differently, such as when it comes to meeting traffic. For example, walkers on a narrow path also have to avoid each other next to the path. Why shouldn't a cyclist be able to stop briefly and step to the side? And pedestrians also cause erosion. But this is only cited as a reason for closing the trail to mountain bikers. There is no justification for this.