Cycling UK Forum

It depends whether you are looking at it from a cycling side or a tourist board's side.
When I traveled around the world I made a distinction between myself and "Tourists".
I didnt actually try and define that difference, now on reflection I would say a tourist is somebody who pays a premium because of the touristic nature of the goods and services provided.

This partly revolves around what you mean by "tourism". I have been involved professionally in this sort of stuff in the past. I've worked on projects to create shared use tracks, and to improve public footpaths and bridleways. And one of the ways of getting funding was to say that these projects generated "tourism".

In this particular context "tourism" is a sector of the economy that caters for leisure activities, and the punters doing the spending have travelled. In this context they may have only travelled a few miles and may go home at the end of the day. If you think about it many of our widely accepted "tourist attractions" have always partly relied on customers who visit them on a day out. Fountains Abbey has long been a nice day out for people who live in Leeds. People in Manchester pop down to Snowdonia for a day. They use facilities that are also used by people "on holiday" in those areas. So it all gets classed as "tourism".

Down here in South Wales we have the extensive network of off-road cycling tracks in the Afan Valley. The idea has always been to cater for a local or regional market, but with the hope of drawing in people from further afield to spend money locally. So in this context, for those providing facilities, it is "tourism". So is walking. And horse riding. And eating in a pub. All these are part of the "tourism" sector. That is not to say that they are not also parts of other sectors. It is not to say that they do not also have other justifications or contexts. It is just saying that "tourism" is one of the contexts in which we can see these things. And one extra reason for funding their development.

GPC wrote:

whoof wrote:What is your definition of tourism, going somewhere for the purposes of leisure? If going to Blackpool for the day to see the lights is tourism then going to a mountain bike centre to ride a mountain bike is cycle tourism. If tourism is a journey for leisure purposes and it has to include an overnight stay then it's only cycle tourism if you go somewhere to ride a bike regardless on if it's a mountain bike or a unicycle and stay overnight.

So is taking your bike to your local velodrome tourism?

You tell me. Is travelling to a velodrome to watch tourism? I did this earlier this year; I got the train to Manchester, stayed overnight watched some track cycling the next evening, stayed another night and got the train home. If you would describe this as tourism then if I did the same but rode on the velodrome rather than watching then this would be cycle tourism (not cycle touring).

It depends on your definition of tourism the fact that it includes a bicycle of any sort simple means your insert the word cycle before it just as in agro-tourism, eco-tourism or sex-tourism .

GPC wrote: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.

Sources as requested.

http://transformscotland.org.uk/wp/wp-c ... report.pdf

http://www.leelau.net/Misc/EIS%20bike/E ... %20article)/2009%20Scotland%20Economic-Impact-of-Mountain-Biking-Final-Report.pdf


On this, 2009 report, Glentress received about 184k MTB visitors, of which about 64% were day visitors, spending £10-15 each per day, while the overnighters were averaging two nights with spending £32-£45 per day.

Obviously those staying in an area overnight spend more, but there are more day visitors, which balances the figures a lot more- clearly it's area dependent as well, somewhere like Surrey or the Peak District will have a lot more day visitors, but they will often be repeat visitors, there are discussions about how to best monetise them, e.g. Parking fees, cafes etc. - consider also that several of the Scottish and Welsh trail centres have bike shops there (and it's not like a bike shop could survive purely on local business in these rural areas) then I would say that it's fair to include those jobs and spending as tourism spend too.

I can't recall where I got the road cyclist and walking spend figures

GPC wrote:

rmurphy195 wrote:Depends what you mean by mountain biking ad what you are doing with your bike..

If it's a competition then no, its sport, just like road racing.

If you're riding around for the fun of it/exploring/enjoying the scenery then you are touring, just as much as if you were out on a day ride or a camping trip on a road bike.

If you are going to work and back cross-country on a mountain bike, then you are commuting!

OK, you drive out 10 miles with your bikes in the car to Glentress, spend the day MTB and drive home. Is that tourism, no formal competition involved.

Yup, you are unloading the bike and then riding it around for the fun of it/exploring/enjoying the scenery. I do this regularly to the peak district, forest of dean etc with Brompton or tourer, and used to take my son and his friends to Cannock Chase, Coed-y-Brenin and such places with an ATB. I don't ride to these places 'cos they are too far away, but I'll drive there with a bike, spend a day touring around, then drive back (or go by train). Or spend a few days there with in the caravan or at a B & b. I do the same with walking boots instead of a bike, it's all the same really, just touring around.

meic wrote:

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.

Why is that such a problem,especially if there's no public transport that takes bikes?
MTBing can be a very specialised branch of cycling,especially if done in the countryside on designated trails,IMO those that ride those trails are less likely to ride to them due to their specialised bikes,they're less likely to ride on the road too unless they're short hopping riding from one trail/track to another.
It seems a bit elitist to label them as "Proper" mountain bikers in an implied derogatory sense.
FWIW I ride an MTB occasionally and have never ridden any specialised trail centres nor would know a red from a black route,it's not my thing,in the same way I've never ridden a sportive,nor wish too,but I can understand those that do enjoy it and if it suits them who am I to complain.

reohn2 wrote:

meic wrote:

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.

Why is that such a problem,especially if there's no public transport that takes bikes?
MTBing can be a very specialised branch of cycling,especially if done in the countryside on designated trails,IMO those that ride those trails are less likely to ride to them due to their specialised bikes,they're less likely to ride on the road too unless they're short hopping riding from one trail/track to another.
It seems a bit elitist to label them as "Proper" mountain bikers in an implied derogatory sense.
FWIW I ride an MTB occasionally and have never ridden any specialised trail centres nor would know a red from a black route,it's not my thing,in the same way I've never ridden a sportive,nor wish too,but I can understand those that do enjoy it and if it suits them who am I to complain.

I don't see anyone suggesting that the Ramblers and fell walkers who swamp the Lake District National Park every summer aren't 'proper' ramblers because they don't walk all the way there and back...

Is walking across Westminster Bridge tourism?

PH wrote:Is walking across Westminster Bridge tourism?

If you live in Surrey and are walking between Waterloo and Channel 4 headquarters for a meeting, then No - if you live in Portsmouth and are walking between BIg Ben and the London Eye, then very possibly yes.

Doesn't seem like too difficult a concept does it?

Labrat wrote:I don't see anyone suggesting that the Ramblers and fell walkers who swamp the Lake District National Park every summer aren't 'proper' ramblers because they don't walk all the way there and back...

Labrat wrote:

PH wrote:Is walking across Westminster Bridge tourism?

If you live in Surrey and are walking between Waterloo and Channel 4 headquarters for a meeting, then No - if you live in Portsmouth and are walking between BIg Ben and the London Eye, then very possibly yes.

Doesn't seem like too difficult a concept does it?

I find it the simplest of concepts, even simpler than your answer. Doesn't matter how far you've come or how you got there, or where you're heading, or how much you're spending, or if staying overnight... If you're there as a tourist, then it's tourism, really couldn't be simpler.
Westminster Bridge was the easiest example I could think of, it's easy to see that for some it undoubtedly is tourism and equally easy to see that for many others it isn't.

reohn2 wrote:

meic wrote:

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.

Why is that such a problem,especially if there's no public transport that takes bikes?
MTBing can be a very specialised branch of cycling,especially if done in the countryside on designated trails,IMO those that ride those trails are less likely to ride to them due to their specialised bikes,they're less likely to ride on the road too unless they're short hopping riding from one trail/track to another.
It seems a bit elitist to label them as "Proper" mountain bikers in an implied derogatory sense.
FWIW I ride an MTB occasionally and have never ridden any specialised trail centres nor would know a red from a black route,it's not my thing,in the same way I've never ridden a sportive,nor wish too,but I can understand those that do enjoy it and if it suits them who am I to complain.

Well you have done plenty of reading between the lines there!
I am merely making an observation of fact that people who ride our local tracks arrive almost exclusively with their bikes in the cars, it isnt a moral judgement just what is happening.
They do tend to bring much more support equipment and clothing in their vehicles than you could realistically cycle with.
I am not sure if I am being accused of elitist derogatory comments against those I call "proper" mountain bikers or those who I dont class as "proper" mountain bikers! Again it was just a classification which they would recognise and I would recognise, I know they are "proper" mountain bikers and they know that I am not. Nothing elitist or derogatory about it from either side.
No need to go looking for disharmony where there is none!

meic wrote:Well you have done plenty of reading between the lines there!
I am merely making an observation of fact that people who ride our local tracks arrive almost exclusively with their bikes in the cars, it isnt a moral judgement just what is happening.
They do tend to bring much more support equipment and clothing in their vehicles than you could realistically cycle with.
I am not sure if I am being accused of elitist derogatory comments against those I call "proper" mountain bikers or those who I dont class as "proper" mountain bikers! Again it was just a classification which they would recognise and I would recognise, I know they are "proper" mountain bikers and they know that I am not. Nothing elitist or derogatory about it from either side.
No need to go looking for disharmony where there is none!

Then you have my apology.

meic wrote:...
I am merely making an observation of fact that people who ride our local tracks arrive almost exclusively with their bikes in the cars, it isnt a moral judgement just what is happening.
They do tend to bring much more support equipment and clothing in their vehicles than you could realistically cycle with.
I am not sure if I am being accused of elitist derogatory comments against those I call "proper" mountain bikers or those who I dont class as "proper" mountain bikers! Again it was just a classification which they would recognise and I would recognise, I know they are "proper" mountain bikers and they know that I am not. Nothing elitist or derogatory about it from either side.
No need to go looking for disharmony where there is none!

I'm not sure what the whole point of the observation is
Discussing "what" is Touring and what is not? Is there a specific time, money, distance, terrain or equipment to classify a "ride" as a "tour"?

My opinion is that whenever it takes more than one day, is a "tour" and quite frankly I'm there to enjoy the scenery and the people or anything that is in a place I've never been before, or I've not been in a while. If that does not qualify as "tour" it's simply a word that does not distract me from the main reason I'm riding

Whether I'm on the road, on the mud, or a mix of the two, it requires the right things to carry along. Being offroad means that supply of water and food become the top priority, while on the road you are more likely to find a shop or a place to get water and food.
This means that you have to be more careful when packing. I too see people that would carry a lot more than what is needed, especially on a single day ride, on the other hand the impredictable British weather does require to carry waterproofs.

On a single day ride I carry one water bottle (or a camelback if is a very long ride and/or in the summer), a very small saddle bag with the essential tools. In the jersey pockets there's an inner tube, a couple of oat bars and dates/dry figs, phone and an Oyster card wallet with some money and ID, a very small pouch with tissues/plasters/eye drops, and a packable rain jacket. I do not carry big bags, and my camelback bag is a mere 6lt capacity which I do never use.

But when the ride involves more than one day, and not using B&B, then it's a different story. One needs to carry more food, water, a shelter and bedding, and means to cook.
Having all this does not make a "proper" mountain bikes declassified "not proper", aside from the fact that most people would ride either tarmac or offroad or CX, there is indeed no need to classify people. I would only observe that some people do overthink and overpack their cars and bikes; and some other people would bring only what is needed according to their experience.
I.e., here we are doing the SDW over 3 days (2 nights), taking it relatively easy but not lazy. We never bothered thinking if that was "proper" or not, we were just riding and enjoying the journey

meic wrote:I think that the definition of tourism that are working to is about spending money.

A local who mountain bikes and spends in a pub, a cafe and a local bike shop is a better tourist than me wild camping and buying some bread and cheese in a Tescos.

You spendthrift - I use Lidl and Aldi when I'm touring.

What's the difference between cycle tourism and cycle touring? My touring is mainly self contained with sleeping gear, overnight shelter, cooking and eating equipment all carried on the bike. Is staying in hotel/B&B/hostel accommodation touring or tourism? Does it vary with the type of accommodation - how YHA used to be or 4 star hotels for example.