"You can't park there, mate!" 

The summit of most mountains, including Gamsberg 2384 m, P1357 m in the Swiss Alps, cannot be reached by car - photo Richard Harbron

Drive-ups, status and the 'my rules' concept in peak bagging

When Mark asked me to write an opinion article on the ethics of driving cars up mountains in peak-bagging, I hoped it could form one half of a 'point-counterpoint' type piece in which two people make their case from opposing viewpoints. Nobody volunteered to defend drive-ups, so I suggested I could attempt to write a more neutral article that tries to see things from both perspectives.  Pontificating is obviously a waste of time.

I started by doing a bit of scientific research, trying to get a rough idea of (1) the proportion of summits that can be reached by motorized transport, and (2) the proportion of peak-baggers that take advantage of this when given the chance. The second part of the article explores the motivation behind peak-bagging and the appropriateness of the 'my rules' concept. Throughout, I want to emphasise the distinction between climbing mountains per se and the practice of publicly logging these ascents on websites such as peakbagger.com and appearing on some form of ranked leaderboards with other climbers. The motivation between these two things is not necessarily the same, and some of the concepts associated with one may not necessarily translate well to the other. 

An analysis of drive-ups

To investigate the proportion of summits that can be reached by motorized transport, I used Peakbagger.com to create a sample of mountains with at least 600 m of prominence in the European Alps (France, Germany, Italy, Switzerland, Austria, Liechtenstein and Slovenia), then expanded the search to include the P600 m of non-Alpine France, Switzerland and Germany, the British Isles and 'Central Europe' (Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovakia). This gave a total sample of 818 peaks. I then attempted to identify which of these summits can be reached with less than 100 m of elevation gain, including re-ascent, from the nearest road, train station or cable car station. Anything requiring an off-road vehicle doesn't count. This is not an especially easy task and relies on a combination of various maps, photographs and user reports. There is certainly room for error, so the findings presented here should be regarded as approximate.

Overall, I identified fifty-three P600 m summits definitely accessible by car, train or cable car (about 6% of all P600 m  in the sample) (Tables 1 and 2). Two are ultras and eighteen others have a prominence of between 1000 and 1500 m. Most were relatively low mountains, with only seven summits above 2000 m. The highest is Zugspitze at 2962 m (there are higher 'drive-up' summits in Europe, but non with any major prominence). All 'drive-up' summits are accessible by foot, in most cases via easy hiking trails. There are perhaps a couple of dozen other peaks just missing the 100 m cut-off and a few others in which some form of dirt track leads to the summit but would require an off-road vehicle.

Most of the German and Swiss 'drive-up' summits are reachable by mountain railway or cable car/ski-lift, while in France most summits were reachable by car. One peak (Crêt de Châtillon 1702 m, P805 m) has a winter bus route to the summit. In four cases, the road leading to the summit appears to be prohibited or private, though for three of these peaks, multiple drive-up ascents have been logged. For a few mountains, cable cars or chairlifts give access to the summit during ski season only, including a couple of cases in which the summit could theoretically be reached by various ski lifts with downhill skiing in between.

Next, I examined the logged ascents of these peaks and identified the number of ascents by motorized transport, using the same 100 m cut-off. For convenience I will call these 'drive-up' ascents, compared to 'fair' ascents on foot. In some cases, elevation gain was not entered, but sufficient details were provided in the trip report to classify the ascent. Where one user has climbed a peak multiple times, or if multiple users have climbed together in a group, I recorded this as a single ascent. As of April 2023, there were 169 drive-up ascents and 638 fair ascents combined, across all 53 peaks. The remaining summit logs did not provide sufficient details to tell either way. Obviously, these logged ascents represent a tiny fraction of the total number of ascents each peak sees (by any means), but the aim was to investigate the behaviour of peak-baggers who make their ascents public and who appear on frontrunners lists or other leaderboards.

The summits accessible by car had a much higher proportion of 'drive-up' ascents than those accessible by train or cable car, presumably due to cost. The only mountains with sufficient numbers to allow any meaningful analysis were Zugspitze, Snowdon and Sněžka (all country high-points). For Zugspitze, I identified 20 'drive-up' ascents (by cable car) and 85 ascents on foot. Zugspitze is interesting because there is hardly any middle ground. Ascents either involve huge elevation gain, typically 1700-2200 m, or almost none at all. The summit logs are a curious mix of two completely different activities, both with the same outcome. For Yr Wyddfa/Snowdon, there were only 3 logged ascents using the mountain railway compared to 168 by foot (excluding duplicate climbs by the same climber). For Sněžka, nobody has admitted to using the cable car. Why are there so few 'drive-up' ascents of Snowdon or Sněžka? Neither mountain is especially difficult by their standard route, though there are easier mountains with a higher proportion of drive-ups. The only common factor seems to be non-locality. Nobody drives up mountains in their local region. Instead, people seem much more likely to drive up when they are far from home, often as part of an extended peak bagging trip.

The most common reason for drive-up ascents, where given, was lack of time (plane to catch etc.). A few reports mentioned bad weather. The vast majority of reports gave no specific reason. Some reports of drive-ups expressed a sense of regret and a desire to return and climb the mountain properly (they never do). No reports mentioned injury or long-term disability. Clearly, the disabled are an under-represented group in the peak-bagging community.

The choice of region was arbitrary. Sure, there are parts of the world with more drive-up peaks, but others with none at all. Overall, it seems unlikely that the proportion of drive-up peaks exceeds a few percent of the world total. One of the reasons  people give for driving up mountains is that there are so many peaks around the world, it would be impossible to climb them all without taking shortcuts wherever possible. It makes no difference though. The numbers just don't add up. Nobody will climb all the world's 'Ribus' or P600 m or whatever, regardless of whether they drive up the easy ones.  At the end of 2022, the most P600m peaks bagged by a single climber taking part in the BwB 'Hall of Fame' tables was less than 4% of the world total. Nobody in the top 20 in the P600m list had climbed a single P600 m over 7000 m. The best anyone can hope for is to complete regional lists, in which case drive-ups are definitely not necessary.

“My game, my rules, everybody look at how many mountains I've climbed!”

Does any of this matter?  What's the point in going to all this trouble of studying drive-up behaviour in peak bagging? Surely it's immaterial because everyone is free to ascend mountains in the manner of their own choice?  Surely this freedom to make your own rules and set your own objectives is a central part of the appeal of peak bagging?  Your game, your rules, right? It sounds so obvious, but that's not what peak-bagging is about for many people.

Anyone who uses the website Peakbagger.com will have noticed a box marked 'Hide ascent' in the ascent editor page. If this box is checked, the ascent becomes invisible to everyone except the user and their 'buddies'. The ascent will count towards the user's own personal list completion progress and will contribute to their ranking on frontrunners’ lists from their perspective only. For anyone else, hidden ascents are invisible and do not count in frontrunners’ lists. It's also possible to hide an entire account, in which case all logged ascents can only been seen by the climber and their buddies.

For anyone who doesn't use the 'hide ascent' option, it's worth considering why not. There are a number of perfectly valid reasons, including providing information about the route and GPS tracks to help others, and the desire for status, kudos and recognition from other peak-baggers.  Some may find the ability to compete against other users on frontrunners’ lists is a form of motivation. Others may enjoy engaging in a bit of shameless self-promotion. Nothing wrong with any of that.

For climbers taking part in the Baggers Without Borders (BwB) 'Hall of Fame' tables, the desire to gain peer recognition and compete with others is even more overt and requires participants to explicitly opt in. In contrast to Peakbagger.com, there are no walk reports or GPS tracks. It's purely a numbers game.

The need for status, recognition and bragging rights is nothing new and has always been one of the motivating factors in climbing mountains, right from the birth of alpinism in the mid nineteenth century. Part of the reason we climb mountains is to tell other people we've climbed mountains. As peak-baggers, we like to think of ourselves a peculiar bunch, but we're not. We're just like everyone else and are motivated by the same desire for status and recognition .

This desire for status and recognition pushes people to extraordinary lengths, spending vast amounts of money, quitting jobs and taking sabbaticals from work, spending time away from our families and sometimes putting ourselves in danger. Would we be doing any of this if there was nobody else watching? No, I don't think so. The idea that peak-bagging is a kind of esoteric personal quest has little basis in reality. We are all playing the same game, regardless of whether or not we have the self-awareness to realise it. If you appear on any form of leaderboard in which you're ranked against other climbers, then you're playing the same game. If you take part in the BwB Hall of Fame, then you're playing the same game.

The 'my rules' concept works perfectly well if we keep our activities to ourselves. The moment we start appearing on leaderboards ranked against other climbers it becomes more complicated. It may be your rule that you can drive up a mountain in a car, but it's certainly not mine and there are plenty of others like me. Is it fair that we are expected to respect your rules as you push your way past us up the leaderboard?

The simplest solution is to have a rule that applies to everybody, but make it as permissive as possible. We accept that peak-bagging is a 'summit focussed' activity and leave it at that. In other words, it's about being present on the summit of a mountain, regardless of how you got there. You get to keep your drive-ups and pretentious purists like me can put up or shut up.

There is another, more radical alternative. We accept that peak-bagging really is the esoteric personal quest people claim it is and do away with any form of leaderboards altogether. Get rid of frontrunners’ lists and get rid of the Hall of Fame tables. The increasingly sport-like nature of peak-bagging with its rankings and medals is at odds with the spirit of climbing mountains and love of the great outdoors.

Or something like that. This line of thought is complete BS because ultimately the reason why we 'go public' with our ascents is because we like to boast and get recognition. If you don't believe me, prove it. Hide your ascents. Your game, your rules, your list. There's no reason why anyone else needs to know what you've been up to. If you want to post route descriptions, there are plenty of better ways of doing it than Peakbagger.com, which has limits on the amount of photos that can be uploaded.

Conclusion

Based on a sample of European P600 m peaks, the majority of summits cannot realistically be reached by motorized transport. Among those that can, most peak-baggers still opt to climb them on foot.

There is an important distinction between climbing mountains per se and making these ascents public on websites where they contribute to ranked leaderboards alongside other climbers.

The question is not whether drive-ups should be 'allowed', rather whether they are worthy of status or recognition from others. I offer no opinions here, and rather leave it to individuals to decide for themselves.

Richard Harbron