Erosion

velomaniac

velomaniac

MacRetro Rider
Plodding through the singletrack on route to work on my SS I was accosted by an elder female walker about the dreadful erosion bikes were doing to the paths. The fact that the mud was heavily punctuated with footprints and hoofprints but only one tyre track (mine) didn't seem to enter into it. Walkers dont cause erosion, bikes and horses do was her assertion and she stomped off muttering to herself.

Why is it I never think of anything to say when I need to. I later wanted to point out to her that the Lake District is routinely worn away by mainly walkers. That the path she feared for was actually created by miners in hobnailed boots going around the edge of a slag heap on route to the colliery in years past and thus was never a beauty spot. That this is Scotland in mid winter and thus muddy paths were normal as had ever been even prior to the invention of bikes or even steel shoed horses.

Narrow minded, ill informed old baggages really get my goat. Plus her dog was a Border Terrier, well famous for digging things up and generally erroding the landscape in search of a rabbit.

Sorry, rant over but is there any real evidence any one group is erroding the pathways of Britain any more than any other group :?
 
There was a survey featured in a few mountain bike mags in the early 90's that showed that more erosion was caused by walkers than anything else. I would imagine that is partly down to the higher numbers of walkers than bikers.
 
I remember reading an article in one of the mountain bike magazines back in the 90's which compared the effects of walking, biking and horseriding on different terrain.

Lots of quadrants and material displacement analysis concluded that feet and tyres produced similar levels of erosion on most surfaces, whereas horses due to their increased weight on a relatively small contact point caused on average seven times the amount of displacement.

Obviously with bikes, skidding or 'schralping' as the current mags seem to encourage will cause increased levels of damage. The survey data only applied to 'responsible riding'. Remember, skids are for kids... etc.

Bike tyres are often perceived to cause more damage as the long unbroken lines of a tyre track are very noticeable when compared to the pock marks of footprints on softer ground.

It's all very subjective though. Many bikers contest that they will ride through a puddle whereas walkers try to go around it, expanding the used or eroded part of a path or trail, and thus causing unnecessary damage.

In well used or especially 'honeypot' locations, the volume of walkers in comparison to bikers will almost always mean that popular footpaths are more eroded than bridleways.
A good example of this is the Mam Tor to Hollins Cross ridge in the Peak District which forms part of the Retrobike Mr K's Day in the Peaks ride.

The bridleway which contours around behind the summit is still largely grassed over, whereas the footpath which runs parallel and up the top of Mam Tor became so badly eroded it had to be stone flagged a few years ago.
Where the bridleway and footpath converge the flagging and stone pitching continues all the way along the ridge to Hollins Cross. The more popular route back down towards Castleton has also been repaired and armoured due to the volume of foot traffic. The less well used (by walkers) routes down the other side of the ridge into Edale are 'unrestored' and remain popular with bikers. In the twenty or so years I've been riding those routes I haven't noticed any real long term deterioration, only seasonal variations.

So yes, ranting can be cathartic, especially as she was wrong.
 
Bridleways near me have been rutted and severely eroded to the point of being impassible in a lot of places by twats on quads and dirt bikes.
 
There's a very well written article about it in the CTC magazine this month. I'll try and scan it if anyone's interested?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top