Cycling UK Forum

A tour requires an overnight stop.
99.9% of all bike rides are therefore not tour.

700c wrote:A tour requires an overnight stop.
99.9% of all bike rides are therefore not tour.

That's a excellent definition, and I totally agree.
I go for day trips and tours, tours always involve a tent.
And as I've got older sometimes a hotel or b&b ....
But overnight is a Tour ...

Good definition as far as I am concerned, happy to sue that.

Except tourism doesn't require touring... only in the most formal sense of the word is this implied.

OK, remove the bike from the question. If I got to the national trust house down the road for a cup of tea, some scones, and an nice bimble round the garden am I a tourist? I would say not. I am a visitor though.

If, whilst on holiday on the Isle of Wight do I visit Osborne House, have a couple of scones, a cup of tea, and a bimble around am I a tourist? I would say yes. I am not local, I have done this as part of a holiday.

Apply thus logic to mountain biking.

GPC wrote:

PH wrote:I really hope there was more interesting stuff going on at your conference than the definition of tourism.
I can't think why it would matter.

I'm puzzled at why you bother to reply, no matter

It was no bother

Where does it say anyone has to stay overnight to tour?
Other than a couple of posters on this thread that is.

"Tourism is the temporary, short-term movement of people to destinations outside the places where they normally live and work and their activities during the stay at each destination."

Assuming that the trip is for pleasure rather than work, then that seems like a perfectly reasonable working definition to me, and I think that day-tripping clearly fits into the modern definition of tourism, it's the fact that people are outside their normal area that's important, not for how long.

Worth mentioning that EFRA have an ongoing inquiry on rural tourism, to which head office have responded

http://www.parliament.uk/business/commi ... nch-16-17/

Tourism is the act of a tourist, a tourist is self defining.
You could ask all the people at any attraction whether they considered themselves a tourist, but what would that do? It might give you a majority opinion, but then what, tell the others they were wrong?
Seriously - what is the point of the question?

CTC indulged in this navel gazing at the start of mountain biking's popularity*, by the time it had decided that maybe it was, or at least they weren't saying it wasn't, the boat was well and truly missed. decades later and the question has made as far as a conference for professionals, my remark that I hoped they had better things to do was off the cuff and apologies to GPC if it appeared rude, but the more |I think about it the more I really do hope that.

*Before my time, but I've seen several references, it may have been the membership but apparently back in the day the membership was the CTC.

At a conference with input from Visit Scotland funds are likely to be targeted where conclusions are drawn. I think I tend to lean on the overnight bit, but am happy to be led further. I don't want a row with someone and am not taking a standpoint. For me, as an organiser and leader of cycling holidays I'd like to facilitate more sustainable opportunities for travel by bike - bikes on buses, bikes carried on trailers etc. There are too few of these things in rural Scotland. You either drive somewhere and hire a not very good or shockingly bad bike quite often. Or you drive with a bike - hence MTB on rides from the surrounding area, not what I'd normally call tourists but locals doing MTB. My question is buried in here.

GPC wrote:At a conference with input from Visit Scotland funds are likely to be targeted where conclusions are drawn. I think I tend to lean on the overnight bit, but am happy to be led further. I don't want a row with someone and am not taking a standpoint. For me, as an organiser and leader of cycling holidays I'd like to facilitate more sustainable opportunities for travel by bike - bikes on buses, bikes carried on trailers etc. There are too few of these things in rural Scotland. You either drive somewhere and hire a not very good or shockingly bad bike quite often. Or you drive with a bike - hence MTB on rides from the surrounding area, not what I'd normally call tourists but locals doing MTB. My question is buried in here.

I think that the sources of transport to a destination is a somewhat valid concern, but it's easy to transport personal 'value' judgements into other people's cycling preferences, as if someone who drives to a trail centre isn't a 'real' cyclist.

Bikes of all sorts are good, people riding bikes is good, bums on saddles is good - we ought to avoid making it more complex than that. Truth is that many of the people driving to ride bikes at trail centres at weekends are riding mountain bikes in peri-urban areas or commuting by bike during the week too.

If anything, I would suggest that it reveals a weakness in provision rather than a weakness in the 'tourism' value of the riding - perhaps there should be more urban fringe trails (not perhaps, there really, really should be more peri-urban trails) but the truth here is that many of the ones that were built were done with... you guessed it, tourism development money. That should give us a clue.

The fact is, that the clear majority of riders to trail centres etc are day visitors, but the money (and lets face it, much of this discussion is about the rural economy) spent by day visitors is still substantial, Food, pubs, impulse purchases etc.- and truth is that the stats say that mountain bikers, despite not staying overnight, spend more in the rural economy, per trip, than road riders and walkers (I did some brief calculations a while back that suggested MTB activity significantly outspent the rural tourism impact of road cycling, since beer/food/apres-ride chill activities were carried out 'in the rural area' whereby for road riding the depart and finish were so often from home/urban locations. To try and exclude it from 'tourism' on the basis of overnight is foolish, because it doesn't matter how long they spend there, it's the money they spend that really matters to the people managing provision and impact.

I couldn't agree more,when the same 'rules' are applied to walkers/ramblers,they are considered 'tourists'.
I agree that there's not enough provision for bikes on public transport,but then there's not enough public transport anyway,that's due to the car-centric society we've cultivated.Public transport needs reviving especially in rural areas and if done properly bike racks on busses shouldn't be a problem to fit and could be a boon to local economy,especially in places where MTBing or road cycling FTM are popular.

I think that the sources of transport to a destination is a somewhat valid concern, but it's easy to transport personal 'value' judgements into other people's cycling preferences, as if someone who drives to a trail centre isn't a 'real' cyclist.

I agree, hence my question.

Bikes of all sorts are good, people riding bikes is good, bums on saddles is good - we ought to avoid making it more complex than that. Truth is that many of the people driving to ride bikes at trail centres at weekends are riding mountain bikes in peri-urban areas or commuting by bike during the week too.
If anything, I would suggest that it reveals a weakness in provision rather than a weakness in the 'tourism' value of the riding - perhaps there should be more urban fringe trails (not perhaps, there really, really should be more peri-urban trails) but the truth here is that many of the ones that were built were done with... you guessed it, tourism development money. That should give us a clue.

That is my point, that tourism money develops these places.

The fact is, that the clear majority of riders to trail centres etc are day visitors, but the money (and lets face it, much of this discussion is about the rural economy) spent by day visitors is still substantial, Food, pubs, impulse purchases etc.- and truth is that the stats say that mountain bikers, despite not staying overnight, spend more in the rural economy, per trip, than road riders and walkers (I did some brief calculations a while back that suggested MTB activity significantly outspent the rural tourism impact of road cycling, since beer/food/apres-ride chill activities were carried out 'in the rural area' whereby for road riding the depart and finish were so often from home/urban locations.

Is that so? I was not aware of thatif it is correct, can you cite a source please as it could be helpful.

To try and exclude it from 'tourism' on the basis of overnight is foolish, because it doesn't matter how long they spend there, it's the money they spend that really matters to the people managing provision and impact.

The overnight bit is a nice definition though, but I take your comments, cheers, this is the sort of discussion I was hoping for.

perhaps there should be more urban fringe trails (not perhaps, there really, really should be more peri-urban trails)

I agree with that but you will be disappointed if you expect many of your target groups to actually ride to them.

I live about 8 miles from some pretty good forestry mountain biking tracks with all colours available up to red and black. I often go to the start point for other reasons and the only people arriving on bikes are myself and some teenagers.
"Proper" mountain bikers need a car (or van) to partake of their sport.

Being a tourist is not equivalent to being on a tour.

If I go to (let's say) Stratford on Avon to have a look around, I am a tourist - would probably spend some money on food, coffee, tacky gifts. I am not on a tour.

If I go to SoA, have a look around - stay overnight somewhere - have a look at Burford the next day, stay overnight, have a look at the Forest of Dean the next day...I am both a tourist AND on a tour.

reohn2 wrote:Where does it say anyone has to stay overnight to tour?
Other than a couple of posters on this thread that is.

Nowhere. I don't understand why some people want to make cycle tourism look less popular by redefining it to exclude most touring - touring that doesn't involve an overnight stop or that is motor-assisted.