Table of Contents
- 1 In the future, almost every hiking trail will also be suitable for mountain bikes: will hiking in the canton of Nidwalden become a minor matter?
- 2 How can Nidwalden strike a balance between promoting mountain biking as a recreational and economic activity while addressing concerns from landowners and protecting the delicate ecological balance of its natural environment?
In the future, almost every hiking trail will also be suitable for mountain bikes: will hiking in the canton of Nidwalden become a minor matter?
The new foot, hiking and mountain bike path law also met with criticism during the consultation.
Are the interests of mountain bikers given priority?
Image: zvg
Hikers and bikers can share paths. At least that’s what the Nidwalden government assumes. With the revision, she wants to supplement the foot and hiking trail law with regulations for mountain bikers.
Die SVP is interested in a coordinated solution for shared use, she writes as part of the consultation that has now ended. However, the interests of the forestry and alpine industries are not taken sufficiently into account. Issues such as compensation, basic bookings or liability issues are not resolved in detail. For Wolfenschiess district administrator Andreas Suter, it is imperative that “not only hikers and bikers are taken into account, but also the affected property owners,” he was quoted as saying in a press release.
The party fears expropriation with the current proposal for “landowner liability”. In this way, a common consensus should be found for a planned path. “If landowners or work owners can only take action against it through an objection and through legal channels, the SVP will not support this new regulation,” she continues. The Buochser SVP district administrator Beat Risi points out: “Nidwalden has a hiking trail network of 630 kilometers. And now the canton wants to make 400 kilometers for bikes. This means that almost every hiking trail should become a bike path. We also have steep mountain paths that are not even passable. In my opinion, 200 kilometers would be enough. That would be sensible, also in view of the expected costs.”
SP wants priority for hikers
Die SP is bothered by the large difference in speed between mountain bikers and other trail users. «In principle, mountain biking should only be permitted on suitable paths. In case of doubt, signals can provide information about whether the path is passable,” writes the party in its response to the consultation. The party does not agree with the proposal that the principle of mutual consideration be anchored in the law and that hikers and bikers have equal rights. For the SP, the protection of “vulnerable road users”, i.e. hikers, has top priority. “Mountain bikers must, without exception, give way to pedestrians or even dismount.”
I fundamentally agree with the draft law FDPalso with the shared use of hikers and bikers. From the party’s point of view, a separate network of paths would be excessive in terms of costs and nature, unless there was no other option due to safety reasons.
Rules of conduct like on the ski slopes
Die Not proposes a code of conduct, similar to the FIS rules for skiing. “Hikers and bikers, but also landowners, should and must show consideration for one another. Uniform official boards at the starting points and flyers must provide information about this,” writes the party. The center does not agree with the proposal that the municipalities are responsible for the construction, signaling and maintenance of the mountain bike paths, as with the hiking trails. She suggests that the communities organize the maintenance themselves and bill the canton. This would distribute the costs among the municipalities proportionately based on the number of inhabitants.
Die Greens are critical of the draft in their statement. In a press release they write that one gets the impression that the law is too one-sidedly geared towards the concerns of mountain biking. “Hiking becomes a minor matter. The landowners are at a disadvantage, as is the nature and landscape through which the mountain bike paths are supposed to lead,” said the Greens. The law even abolishes the consideration of mountain bikers for hikers – and thus the consideration of the stronger for the weaker.
For the GLP It is important that the hiking and mountain bike trails can be used by both pedestrians and mountain bikers. She considers the equality of the two user groups to be fundamental to the desired coexistence, she writes. Unbundling and bans should only be implemented where security is at risk. She also welcomes the legal enshrinement of the principle of mutual consideration between hikers and bikers. The party would like to raise awareness among the Nidwalden population.
The government council is now correcting the law before the district administrator discusses it, probably in the first half of 2025. The law is scheduled to come into force on January 1, 2026. The mountain bike paths should be in place by 2030.
How can Nidwalden strike a balance between promoting mountain biking as a recreational and economic activity while addressing concerns from landowners and protecting the delicate ecological balance of its natural environment?
## Open-Ended Questions for a Discussion on Mountain Bike Legislation in Nidwalden
This article discusses a proposed revision to Nidwalden’s law regarding mountain biking on hiking trails. Here are some open-ended questions to facilitate a discussion on the various viewpoints presented:
**I. Shared Use & Conflict:**
1. **How can hikers and mountain bikers best coexist on shared paths? What infrastructure or regulations are most effective in ensuring safety and respect for both user groups?**
2. **Is the principle of “mutual consideration” sufficient to prevent conflicts between hikers and bikers? Should there be clear hierarchies or designated paths for different user groups?**
3. **How can Nidwalden ensure that walkways don’t become predominantly bike-centric, neglecting the needs and desires of hikers? How can we balance the interests of both groups?**
**II. Landowner Rights & Liability:**
1. **What are the legitimate concerns of landowners regarding the proposed legislation? Should landowners have greater say in determining which paths are suitable for mountain biking?**
2. **How can potential liabilities for landowners be addressed? What measures can be taken to ensure fairness and protection for both landowners and trail users?**
3. **Should landowners be compensated for the use of their land for mountain biking trails? If so, how should compensation be determined?**
**III. Economic & Environmental Impacts:**
1. **What are the potential economic benefits and drawbacks of promoting mountain biking tourism in Nidwalden? How can these be balanced against other economic priorities?**
2. **How can Nidwalden minimize the environmental impact of increased mountain biking activity? What measures can be implemented to preserve the natural landscape and ecosystems?**
3. **Is the proposed goal of 400 km of bike paths realistic and desirable? How do these pathways impact the accessibility and enjoyment of scenic hiking routes?**
**IV. Party Perspectives & Solutions:**
1. **Each political party presented distinct perspectives on the proposed legislation. Which party’s proposal resonates most with you and why? Which solutions do you think hold the most promise for achieving a balanced and sustainable outcome?**
**V. Long-Term Vision:**
1. **What does Nidwalden want to achieve with this legislation? What is the long-term vision for mountain biking in the canton?**
2. **How can Nidwalden ensure that mountain biking remains a positive and sustainable activity for all stakeholders involved?**
These questions aim to delve deeper into the complexities of the proposed mountain bike law, encouraging participants to analyze different perspectives and consider the broader implications of the policy.
