Mixing bicyclists and non-bicyclists within the same facility introduces safety and maintenance issues. Care must be taken throughout the design process if the park is intended to be mixed use. The largest concern is that skateparks—particularly if there is inadequate level of service in the area—are very popular and typically in excess of their intended capacity with only skateboarders. Adding bicycles to the environment acts to displace the less experienced skateboarders.

Maintenance can be an issue for skateparks featuring bullnose coping ("pool coping") as BMX pegs can chip out the lip and make it unusable by skaters. If bikes are going to be an intended user group, steel tube coping should be used.

There are sophisticated design considerations if bikes will be included. Bikes travel at higher speeds and can use the park in ways that skateboarders cannot. As a result, bikes can introduce "blind corners" to a park that functions as expected for skateboarders. An experienced skatepark designer should be comfortable designing a skatepark that is safe for mixed use.

There are social considerations as well. In most communities bikers and skaters get along just fine. Occasionally, however, the competition for space leads to frustration and resentment can flare between the groups. Bikers often feel that they are a legitimate park user and resent being held to a different standard than skaters. Skaters often feel that they have a stronger claim in the space for a variety of reasons. In the end, it will be up to the conflicted community to decide how to best resolve the issue.

Skaters for Public Skateparks encourages and supports mixed-use facilities provided the following conditions are met:

• The BMX community is involved or represented during the advocacy, fundraising, and design process.
• The skatepark is designed with bike usage as a maintenance and safety consideration.
• The hosting community has a reasonable level of service for skateboarders and that different user groups will not need to compete for space.

If you have specific concerns or comments regarding this position or the topic of bikes in skateparks and BMX access, please visit our forums or contact us.

Bicycles and non-bicylists in Skateboard Parks

Too often the people who decide upon important skatepark policies are unaware of how their decisions impact the skatepark environment.

Consider a typical city park where families play in the grass, people jog, and friends play Frisbee. When you think of great city parks, you may think of Boston's Commons, America's oldest public park. It's a great example of what a public space should be but did you know that a few hundred years ago it was used to host a public gallows? Or that it was used for grazing cattle and sheep? These weren't misuses: at the time these were considered acceptable ways to use public space.

Over time we changed our concept of what a public space should be, and in what ways it should serve the general public. Today we have different kinds of acceptable park activities.

Even if you aren't a skater or a biker, involvement with the issues facing today's Parks and Recreation Departments finds a continuation of the kind of societal evolution that turned Boston's corpse and cattle-littered Commons into the park it is today. In other words, these changes didn't happen overnight. They are the result of thousands of smaller policy decisions made over many years. Parks policy continues to change even now; it's just difficult to see the larger picture when it's happening all around us.

Off-road motorcycles, ATVs, and mountain bikes all demanded a response from Parks agencies. As a result, we have new rules for how these properties may be used. Today there are areas one may ride off-road vehicles and other areas where it is prohibited. It wasn't always this way.

The rise in the number of city dwellers with dogs has led to convergent uses of our play fields and open space. New users need access to public space and if their use is not compatible with the existing use, new solutions must be explored. Few groups are as familiar with this as skateboarders. Skaters are generally comfortable co-opting public space and treating the City as an ad hoc skatepark. In places where this isn't acceptable, it generally results in a new skatepark just as new dog parks are the result of the need for an appropriate place to let a dog run free.

Parks and Recreation Departments respond to these changes by identifying new recreational trends and activities, and evaluate how those activities may complement or challenge others. Eventually a solution is identified and implemented.

And that's where we are with the issue of bikes and skateboards within the context of public skateparks. It's a new problem that eventually needs an aswer, but it would be reckless and irresponsible to mandate a "solution" based solely on emotional opinion. As of this writing, most of the conversation regarding mixed-use skateparks seems rooted in illogical arguments that have little bearing on a long-term, equitable solution.

The most common arguments—for and against—regarding mixed-use skateparks are:

"Our needs are identical."
This is a common reaction by bikers to the discussion of BMX inclusion. In fact, BMX and skateboarder needs are not identical. They merely share some common design preferences. Some skateparks will be more popular with BMXers than others, just as some skateparks are more popular with skaters than others...but they aren't always identical parks. Bikes, with their much larger wheels, can easily ride rougher terrain. Skaters, with their smaller wheels, can enjoy smaller radii in the structures. Obstacles that are challenging for skaters are easy for bikers, and vice versa. Bikers travel much faster and can often span areas of a skatepark that only the most skilled skateboarder would even consider. The mountain of evidence suggests that although BMX and skateboarding needs are similar, they are not identical.

A simple illustration of the divergent needs of skaters and bikers can be found in their footprint. Skateboards are typically 8- by 30-inches, or 240 square inches when a person is standing on it. A BMX bike about 10- by 60-inches, or 600 square inches total. While it may not seem like a difference of inches should be significant, a few bikes can easily fill the space on the decks of ramps and bowls. If bikes are expected to use the skatepark, the decks should reflect their larger footprint.

"We have a constitutional right to access this public space."
"We pay our taxes which grants us access."
These two arguments rely on emotional feelings of privilege. Obviously people cannot simply recreate however they please in any public space that suits them. Similarly, just because off-road motorcyclists enjoy wooded trails doesn't mean they should necessarily have unfettered access to all of our national parks, or that dogs should be allowed off leash in any park that suits them. It's absolutely true that in places where it's appropriate and sustainable, these users' needs can be accommodated...but the public would not be served by a wholesale deregulation of these policies.

Our taxes pay for many things that we either do not personally use, have no need for, or deny us access. Skateparks are commonly created to provide a safe place for skaters to recreate. Two groups benefit from the creation of that skatepark; the skaters (obviously), and the people who are frustrated by skateboarding activity in those places where it's not appropriate or allowed. When bikes are permitted in the skatepark, there's a possibility that only the new user group will benefit (bikers) as the skaters may now have an overcrowded skatepark and those displaced skaters return to recreate in places where it's not appropriate.

"Build a bike park."
This is a common reaction by skatepark advocates to increased access demands by bikers. While this seems reasonable at face value, the truth is that skateparks typically take several years of devoted advocacy and fundraising to become a reality. The practical considerations of the BMX community—which is generally smaller and less cohesive than the skateboarding community—is unrealistic and naive. A majority of skatepark advocacy efforts have little or no biker involvement. Whether this is because of the smaller numbers or an underestimation of the importance of their role in the process, skaters often conclude the process feeling like the bikers "didn't do their part." As a result, the no-bikes policy sometimes has a moralistic subtext which doesn't help lessen the immediate conflict between the two user groups.

However, there are bike parks and it has been demonstrated that in some areas there's a tangible need for parks that cater to BMX. Efforts to coalesce and shape the BMX community, (in terms of skatepark access or bike park creation), have generally been unsuccessful in reaching critical mass. 

Many communities that are rich with skateparks typically see the older parks become de facto bike parks with the skaters flocking to the newer facilities. As parks get older, sometimes the surfaces can become rough and unpleasant for skaters but larger, softer bike wheels are unaffected. Depending on the designs of the older parks, this has generally been an acceptable solution.

"Bikes will damage the park."
"Bikes make the park unsafe."
The issue of bikes in skateparks is most commonly considered into two global categories: Safety of the users, and damage to the facility. While this argument is absolutely true—bikes DO damage the skatepark—the same can be said of skaters. In fact, just about any kind of use will ultimately damage the skatepark. It's simple wear and tear. The true question is this; Do bikes significantly accelerate wear-and-tear on the skatepark?

Similarly, the argument that bikes make the skatepark unsafe is dispelled with the same logic. Skateboarding is an inherently risky activity just like any other sport. Bikes don't introduce this risk. The question remains, Do bikes significantly increase the risk to other park users?

The answers depend largely upon the design and construction of the park.

The damage to the material just under the coping is the result of bike peg and axles coming up shy of the coping. At this degree the damage is tolerable but the sheet will need to be replaced soon or else it will be a serious safety issue.

The contact areas for bikes is naturally different. Handlebars, pedals, sprockets, axles, and axle pegs can all contact the structures. Pegs are the most common points of contact. They support the weight of the rider and the bike as it slides across a rail or a ledge. Depending on the angle of the bike, the end of the peg is usually the main contact point so you'll see a gouge behind the leading edge of the ledge or lip about four inches out. In concrete parks this isn't generally a concern but in wood or polymer parks, such as those featuring a Skatelite surface, if there is no protective steel plate behind and below the coping, a deep and potentially destructive groove can form which will eventually compromise the sublayer and support structure beneath.

Sprockets, axles, and handlebars most often cause damage when the bike is thrown away from the rider as a trick is abandoned. The bike can create a small divot in the place that it lands. In parks that feature larger halfpipes—a structure many BMXers enjoy—the pitted evidence of abandoned tricks can be found where the bikes typically land, about the 5- and 7-o'clock positions on the curved form. There is no easy remedy for this situation except perhaps to use high strength concrete in these impact areas. Some features in skateparks, bullnose "pool" coping in particular, are easily damaged by BMX pegs which leads to an unusable feature for skaters and an expensive (and frequent) repair by the park stewards.

BMX and skater safety is a paramount concern for everyone. It is irresponsible to toss around allegations of safety compromises without some practical evidence as it diminishes the importance of the topic.

The first important exercise in determining whether BMX inclusion will impact safety is to assess how many people are using the park. Every skatepark has a natural rhythm that dictates who goes when and where. This "skatepark ettiquette" is the result of years of skaters sharing the space. There's a shared understanding of what any particular skater is likely to try or where they are likely to go. Skaters sometimes don't have this perception of bikers and when the bike is able to go in places (or over structures, or over jumps) that a skater generally can't, suddenly the skater-only rhythm of the space is altered. Some users will be more perceptive than others but it's the less-experienced skaters that suffer the most. They may be struggling to understand when it's their turn to go...when the coast is clear. The biker dropping in across the park can easily be outside of their experience level to perceive and appreciate. Within moments the biker can be within the skater's path or vice versa. It's not malicious or intentional; it's simply two different styles of uses attempting to share the space. 

The bottom line is that not everyone has the same capacity or tolerance to manage the complex impact that bikes can bring to a skateboarding space.

"We can have split sessions."
Bike-only sessions have been known to work in some cases but in skateparks without a vital on-site stewardship group, they usually become free-for-alls within a few weeks. While many park users will respect the posted schedule for bike- or board-only access, it simply takes a few individuals to demonstrate that the rules aren't important. If the skaters and bikers didn't universally support a split session scheme in the first place, a different solution may need to be found. If one of the groups supported split sessions as a concession for exclusive access, resentment and conflicts can arise...particularly skaters who typically have more concerns with sharing the space with bikes than bikes do with skaters. 

Please avoid the temptation to find the expedient solution to your access concerns. Doing so only ensures that your skatepark will fail to meet your community's needs. Similarly, we thank the majority of individuals and communities who continue to study the issue and experiment with new ways of providing equitable access to both groups of users.