After an honorable fight, the mountain bikers of Zug have lost. Their referendum was clearly defeated at the ballot box. This is a setback, while trail projects are coming to fruition in various cantons and regions, politicians are getting involved in the issue and making compromises possible.

Such bike-sceptical cantons as Bern and Lucerne are moving towards mountain bikers, hiring experts and promoting coexistence on trails. The fact that they are doing this because the federal law on cycle paths obliges them to do so is irrelevant. What matters is the momentum that mountain bikers in many regions are using to improve the conditions in which they enjoy their leisure time.

This momentum is, of course, also upsetting for those who would rather have fewer bikers in their forests, hunting grounds and protected areas. Negotiating a compromise with these groups is the hard bread that many bike organizations are now chewing on.

Political work - let's call it lobbying - is absolutely sensible, indeed necessary. After all, the others have been active in this field for decades, if not centuries. Members of parliament and government who are aware of the concerns of mountain bikers and can classify the various needs are crucial to achieving liberal regulations for cycling on narrow trails or obtaining space for trails.

Top ten sport and minority

What won't work, however, is to fight for access to single trails at the ballot box. We mountain bikers are not enough for that. IG Mountainbike Zug got 27 percent of the vote behind it. That's more than two and a half times the proportion of mountain bikers in the population - a great success. But also far from a majority.

In addition: In a referendum battle, cycling enthusiasts face professional associations and organizations that have already fought dozens of such battles, have access to a larger war chest and have long since established a positive image. Many maintain close relationships with political parties, which is a great advantage in a referendum campaign.

The motives and interests of the proponents and opponents of a bill also play a role. In a direct duel, mountain bikers fight for their recreational enjoyment, while forestry and agriculture put their livelihoods on the line. Hunting and nature conservation can swing the ecology club. The fact that mountain biking is not as harmful as is often claimed is a weak argument in comparison.

Conclusion: In the grassroots democratic final battle of a vote, we mountain bikers have a poor Map, despite all the positive developments of recent years. We should therefore avoid seeking decisions in this way whenever possible. The chances of success are minimal. More likely is a brutal verdict, a high percentage that sends the bikers' concerns down the drain. Almost three quarters of those who voted in Zug wanted nothing to do with free trail access.

The situation could be different in small municipalities where majority decisions are made at municipal assemblies, where everyone knows each other and there is a certain level of basic trust. But even there, it might be more promising to seek a compromise directly with the various interest groups - a compromise that does not exist with the simple question of "yes or no?".