• You can move through relatively deep water without getting any in your boots (if you're only wearing knee-highs).

• You can travel farther because you don't get worn out as quickly and, obviously, you're moving a lot faster.

• You end up with a lot fewer blisters than walking for miles in rubber boots.

• You can travel more comfortably through "back breakers" since you're already 1) sitting down and 2) leaning forward.

• Even if you reach a point where you have to leave the bike behind due to rough terrain or the tunnel growing too small, odds are no one will be anywhere around to steal it.  Unless you end up exiting elsewhere instead of returning the way you came in, you're going to be back that way again within a few hours.

• It's hard to turn around in smaller tunnels unless you get to a junction (or you take a tire off).

• If you have mechanical problems (e.g., a flat or something breaks), you're stuck lugging a bike back with you.

• It's hard to sneak into somewhere very quickly or covertly.  However, this can also be an advantage because no one thinks much of a bike rider going odd places.

• You can end up moving too fast and missing details you would otherwise catch.  I literally rolled over a turtle in a tunnel.  I don't know that I would have noticed him otherwise since I didn't even see him in my path.

• It's easier to slip and crash on wet concrete than if you're just walking in boots.  Which would you prefer, blisters or scabs?

My experience has been that bikes were most suitable for sites that I had already scouted out or visited thoroughly earlier.  These tended to be expeditions where I was picking up where I left off previously or where I simply wanted to get to an interesting spot that lay on the other side of a long, monotonous trip that I would just as soon hurry through.

Back to the Textplorations Index