This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
I recently walked the Offa's Dyke path and was surprised to see just how much damage mountain bike tyres cause to the paths, particularly to grass. This is far worse than the damage caused by the boots of walkers - they cause damage too but this tends to be cumulative over a long period of time. Tyres were causing instant damage, particularly on wet grass or soft ground.
Much of the Path is banned to bikes (probably for this reason) but again I was surprised how many cylclists ignored this ban (request?).
I don't have a mountain bike at present, so maybe have become more conscious of the problem, but is there a risk that mountain bikers will start to be viewed adversely in the same way that 4x4 off roaders and trials bikes are?
I've always believed in live and let live but maybe some sectors of the outdoor world are causing a disproportionate amount of enviromental damage?
Post edited at 09:07
1
2
In reply to 3leggeddog:
oh yes...chestnut.
(Lets get the Fatbike wheels sideslipping through that SSSI....)
" y'know the hills wouldn't be there in the first place if it wasn't for erosion" .......
oh yes...chestnut.
(Lets get the Fatbike wheels sideslipping through that SSSI....)
" y'know the hills wouldn't be there in the first place if it wasn't for erosion" .......
In reply to Trangia:
>is there a risk that mountain bikers will start to be viewed adversely in the same way that 4x4 off roaders and trials bikes are?
I'm more concerned with the risk that they might not be.
jcm
>is there a risk that mountain bikers will start to be viewed adversely in the same way that 4x4 off roaders and trials bikes are?
I'm more concerned with the risk that they might not be.
jcm
In reply to Trangia:
No idea if its available on line, but back in the 1980s (when mountain bikes were 'new'), the North East Mountain Trust (Aberdeen) published a short article in their magazine written by Malcolm MacIntyre based on some very rough experiments (similar terrain walked across & cycled across a given number of times). Can't remember the results but I think it concluded that when the soil was wet, bikes did more damage. Maybe someone else can remeber more, & I suspect someone must have done more work on the topic
No idea if its available on line, but back in the 1980s (when mountain bikes were 'new'), the North East Mountain Trust (Aberdeen) published a short article in their magazine written by Malcolm MacIntyre based on some very rough experiments (similar terrain walked across & cycled across a given number of times). Can't remember the results but I think it concluded that when the soil was wet, bikes did more damage. Maybe someone else can remeber more, & I suspect someone must have done more work on the topic
In reply to Trangia:
Like all users of the outdoors, mtb-ers have a responsibilty in how they use the land. If I come across particularly soft ground, I get off and push, and try to plan routes that stick to ground that is likely to be more firm. But in the same way that you get hill walkers who poo in inconsiderate places, or leave behind rubbish etc, there are always people who either through lack of education or just not caring leave a greater impact on the land than we would like. I would argue that walking poles do huge amounts of path erosion, but people accept that erosion...
Like all users of the outdoors, mtb-ers have a responsibilty in how they use the land. If I come across particularly soft ground, I get off and push, and try to plan routes that stick to ground that is likely to be more firm. But in the same way that you get hill walkers who poo in inconsiderate places, or leave behind rubbish etc, there are always people who either through lack of education or just not caring leave a greater impact on the land than we would like. I would argue that walking poles do huge amounts of path erosion, but people accept that erosion...
1
In reply to Trangia:
have you seen how much damage sheep and cattle have done to the landscape, sod mountain bikers and walkers, there are sheep paths everywhere, and cattle destroy fields and streams.....
have you seen how much damage sheep and cattle have done to the landscape, sod mountain bikers and walkers, there are sheep paths everywhere, and cattle destroy fields and streams.....
1
In reply to girlymonkey:
Very true. Isn't the trend towards encouraging rubber tipped poles rather than carbon?
It's the same with climbing boots. Much of the scratching we see on the old Classics was caused by Tricounis and the like.
I have no problem with dedicated mountain bike trails and byways, but in instances, like the Path, where cylcling is prohibited or discouraged it seems a pity that so many cyclists ignore this.
> I would argue that walking poles do huge amounts of path erosion,
Very true. Isn't the trend towards encouraging rubber tipped poles rather than carbon?
It's the same with climbing boots. Much of the scratching we see on the old Classics was caused by Tricounis and the like.
I have no problem with dedicated mountain bike trails and byways, but in instances, like the Path, where cylcling is prohibited or discouraged it seems a pity that so many cyclists ignore this.
In reply to Trangia:
>
just like ramblers on kinder scout all those years ago.
>
> I have no problem with dedicated mountain bike trails and byways, but in instances, like the Path, where cylcling is prohibited or discouraged it seems a pity that so many cyclists ignore this.
just like ramblers on kinder scout all those years ago.
1
In reply to Trangia:
Why?
In terms of damage I would be curious if any decent studies have been done on it. In my experience cycle tracks are more obvious but I am not overly convinced they are more destructive as such, unless someone rides like a nob. Someone slipping and sliding and digging their walking pole in, regardless of the tip, can happily trash the ground but in a more subtle way.
That said I think several of my local trails are about to go off limits for the winter since chances of damage are too high for my liking. I would be reluctant to walk on them as well although that doesnt come up since they would be a tedious walk.
> Totally different scenario and you know it.
Why?
In terms of damage I would be curious if any decent studies have been done on it. In my experience cycle tracks are more obvious but I am not overly convinced they are more destructive as such, unless someone rides like a nob. Someone slipping and sliding and digging their walking pole in, regardless of the tip, can happily trash the ground but in a more subtle way.
That said I think several of my local trails are about to go off limits for the winter since chances of damage are too high for my liking. I would be reluctant to walk on them as well although that doesnt come up since they would be a tedious walk.
In reply to dissonance:
The two different scenarios:
Mass trespass over land owned and used exclusively by a small, select and wealthy sector of society who sought to deny acces by the general public because this interferred with the exclusive use of the land for game shooting
A ban on cycling over a National Long Distance Foot Path used by any sector of society to walk on because cycling damages (or is believed to) the surface. There is an implied restricted use in the word "Foot Path" but the ban is only against the method of use, cyclists are as welcome as anyone else provided they walk.
I too would be interested in any properly constructed study on cycle tyre damage against boots (and poles!). All I can say is that where the ground was "pristine", from my own observations made over two weeks in June and October, when we were passed by cyclists they left a gouge in the grass and indentation in the mud under which carried on for miles. On the other hand when we passed other walkers there was no evidence of foot prints in the grass or mud under.
In places where the grass had eroded away completely the ground had become very muddy and disturbed and this was being churned up by both boots and cycle tyres, this was secondary damage, no doubt a study would reveal the main culprit for the primary damage.
The only places where boot damage appeared to be original was on steep slopes where walkers had been kicking footholds rather like in snow.
The two different scenarios:
Mass trespass over land owned and used exclusively by a small, select and wealthy sector of society who sought to deny acces by the general public because this interferred with the exclusive use of the land for game shooting
A ban on cycling over a National Long Distance Foot Path used by any sector of society to walk on because cycling damages (or is believed to) the surface. There is an implied restricted use in the word "Foot Path" but the ban is only against the method of use, cyclists are as welcome as anyone else provided they walk.
I too would be interested in any properly constructed study on cycle tyre damage against boots (and poles!). All I can say is that where the ground was "pristine", from my own observations made over two weeks in June and October, when we were passed by cyclists they left a gouge in the grass and indentation in the mud under which carried on for miles. On the other hand when we passed other walkers there was no evidence of foot prints in the grass or mud under.
In places where the grass had eroded away completely the ground had become very muddy and disturbed and this was being churned up by both boots and cycle tyres, this was secondary damage, no doubt a study would reveal the main culprit for the primary damage.
The only places where boot damage appeared to be original was on steep slopes where walkers had been kicking footholds rather like in snow.
In reply to Trangia:
Aside from that isnt the reason. Happy to be proved otherwise but as far as am aware those footpaths are open to walkers for various reasons mostly lost in the past but nothing to do with damage caused by whatever means. The same way as some paths on the moors were open despite the wishes of the grouse shooters. It is just many areas of those moors were closed to both cyclists and walkers.
I am not familiar enough with that particular long distance path (thinking on it its about the only one I havent walked at least a bit of, least since i was old enough to remember) but the use of long distance path isnt sufficient in itself. Most of the paths will be built up of a mix of footpath, bridleway. RUPP/BOAT and even road. The Ridgeway for example has a large part which can be cycled due to its historical usage.
Out of curiosity how much time do you spend following tracks. I have a vague interest in them (for which read I am fairly shit at anything more than the startlingly obvious) and I know its far easier to spot a cycle tracks since we are drawn to straight lines. Despite being pretty shit at tracks there have been a few times when I been busy following damage from feet and had a mate ask me why I chose the particular path. Whereas if it was a cycle track they would see it clearly.
Thats not saying bikes cant cause additional damage under certain circumstances. Riding like a nob, eg skidding all over the place, or in some cases trying to ride up muddy grass would be damaging however pretty much every rider I know would walk up those hills instead since, frankly, it would be quicker apart from anything else. On the other hand heading downhill I suspect, unless braking like a nutter, on softish grass a bike would cause less damage than a walker digging their heels in.
Like I said I wont be riding some local paths since I dont care for the damage which will happen. However the same is also true if I am walking although that does have the advantage I can move slower and do lots of jumping to, hopefully, minimise damage.
Ultimately though we cause damage wherever we go and that damage accumulates so there comes a time where as either a walker or cyclist its best to back off.
The problem in many area is either there simply isnt many areas open to cycling which means either people say sod it and ride where they want or the damage is heavily focussed.
> A ban on cycling over a National Long Distance Foot Path used by any sector of society to walk on because cycling damages (or is believed to) the surface.
Aside from that isnt the reason. Happy to be proved otherwise but as far as am aware those footpaths are open to walkers for various reasons mostly lost in the past but nothing to do with damage caused by whatever means. The same way as some paths on the moors were open despite the wishes of the grouse shooters. It is just many areas of those moors were closed to both cyclists and walkers.
I am not familiar enough with that particular long distance path (thinking on it its about the only one I havent walked at least a bit of, least since i was old enough to remember) but the use of long distance path isnt sufficient in itself. Most of the paths will be built up of a mix of footpath, bridleway. RUPP/BOAT and even road. The Ridgeway for example has a large part which can be cycled due to its historical usage.
> On the other hand when we passed other walkers there was no evidence of foot prints in the grass or mud under.
Out of curiosity how much time do you spend following tracks. I have a vague interest in them (for which read I am fairly shit at anything more than the startlingly obvious) and I know its far easier to spot a cycle tracks since we are drawn to straight lines. Despite being pretty shit at tracks there have been a few times when I been busy following damage from feet and had a mate ask me why I chose the particular path. Whereas if it was a cycle track they would see it clearly.
Thats not saying bikes cant cause additional damage under certain circumstances. Riding like a nob, eg skidding all over the place, or in some cases trying to ride up muddy grass would be damaging however pretty much every rider I know would walk up those hills instead since, frankly, it would be quicker apart from anything else. On the other hand heading downhill I suspect, unless braking like a nutter, on softish grass a bike would cause less damage than a walker digging their heels in.
Like I said I wont be riding some local paths since I dont care for the damage which will happen. However the same is also true if I am walking although that does have the advantage I can move slower and do lots of jumping to, hopefully, minimise damage.
Ultimately though we cause damage wherever we go and that damage accumulates so there comes a time where as either a walker or cyclist its best to back off.
The problem in many area is either there simply isnt many areas open to cycling which means either people say sod it and ride where they want or the damage is heavily focussed.
In reply to dissonance:
I should clarify that large sections of the ODP are open to both cyclists and walkers, and even horse riders. It also follows some road sections. I was refering to those sections where cyling is actually banned.
As for following cycle tracks I became aware of it when we were overtaken by two cyclists (on a banned section) and quite surprised at just how much damage was caused by these two. We watched tufts of grass flying up from their tyres as they pulled away from us and followed these fresh tracks for about three miles.
It was this incident that got me thinking and hence my OP.
I certainly recommend the ODP - it's very varied, hilly apart from a flat section in the middle where it crosses the Severn flood plain, and full of sheep and stiles!
I should clarify that large sections of the ODP are open to both cyclists and walkers, and even horse riders. It also follows some road sections. I was refering to those sections where cyling is actually banned.
As for following cycle tracks I became aware of it when we were overtaken by two cyclists (on a banned section) and quite surprised at just how much damage was caused by these two. We watched tufts of grass flying up from their tyres as they pulled away from us and followed these fresh tracks for about three miles.
It was this incident that got me thinking and hence my OP.
I certainly recommend the ODP - it's very varied, hilly apart from a flat section in the middle where it crosses the Severn flood plain, and full of sheep and stiles!
Post edited at 21:11
In reply to Trangia:
Yup I was just commenting on your reference to long distance paths generally. If you walk some bridleways and footpaths its often hard to spot the difference which undermines your comment about avoiding damage.
I havent personally seen that and being a slow arse i tend to be the one behind. I guess accelerating hard and an aggressive choice of tyres might manage it.
It will go on the list but since I have limited time off and rather foolishly started on the South West coast path as the next serious walk in segments so might be a while.
> I was refering to those sections where cyling is actually banned.
Yup I was just commenting on your reference to long distance paths generally. If you walk some bridleways and footpaths its often hard to spot the difference which undermines your comment about avoiding damage.
> We watched tufts of grass flying up from their tyres as they pulled away from us and followed these fresh tracks for about three miles.
I havent personally seen that and being a slow arse i tend to be the one behind. I guess accelerating hard and an aggressive choice of tyres might manage it.
> I certainly recommend the ODP - it's very varied, hilly apart from a flat section in the middle where it crosses the Severn flood plain, and full of sheep and stiles!
It will go on the list but since I have limited time off and rather foolishly started on the South West coast path as the next serious walk in segments so might be a while.
In reply to Trangia:
I live in the Black Mountains, just below Offa's Dyke. Very little damage is caused by mountain bikers. There are places where the ground is soggy year round and just not fun to ride and most bikers avoid that. Some hill farmers use trials bikes and many use quad bikes to access their land and their tracks are often evident. The biggest destroyers of the landscape in this area though, by a huge margin, are sheep and cows and they just don't take any notice when I point this out to them. Just to be clear, open access land is strictly limited to walkers. Cyclist must use bridleways, byways or restricted byways but not all byways are created equal! Problems occur when people venture into hills unable to read a map or understand what they can legally ride on.
I live in the Black Mountains, just below Offa's Dyke. Very little damage is caused by mountain bikers. There are places where the ground is soggy year round and just not fun to ride and most bikers avoid that. Some hill farmers use trials bikes and many use quad bikes to access their land and their tracks are often evident. The biggest destroyers of the landscape in this area though, by a huge margin, are sheep and cows and they just don't take any notice when I point this out to them. Just to be clear, open access land is strictly limited to walkers. Cyclist must use bridleways, byways or restricted byways but not all byways are created equal! Problems occur when people venture into hills unable to read a map or understand what they can legally ride on.
Post edited at 22:48
In reply to Doug:
I - ahem - think I did the very first comparative study for my MSc thesis back in 1990. The results were inconclusive and the experiment a bit flawed in retrospect. MTBs did more damage but not significantly so.
I did however dry quarter of a ton of peat in an oven which pissed the cleaners off no end
I - ahem - think I did the very first comparative study for my MSc thesis back in 1990. The results were inconclusive and the experiment a bit flawed in retrospect. MTBs did more damage but not significantly so.
I did however dry quarter of a ton of peat in an oven which pissed the cleaners off no end
In reply to Trangia:
This might interest you:
http://www.sell2wales.gov.uk/search/show/search_view.aspx?ID=NOV060330
This might interest you:
http://www.sell2wales.gov.uk/search/show/search_view.aspx?ID=NOV060330
In reply to Trangia:
My experience is that in drying conditions the passing of many bike tyres actually improves a surface by flattening and compressing mud; you will often see a smooth "path" through the middle of a patch of older tyre tracks, footprints or hoof marks.
The massive areas of open bog on the tops of mountains are not made by bike tyres but by thousands of walkers striking further and further out in an attempt to find firm ground by which to cross the wet patch. We all do it so we're all guilty.
That said, as a mountain biker for 25 years, I do know that while the majority of mountain bikers respect the footpath restriction, for a small number it's seen as fair game to ride what are called "cheeky trails" at night when there's nobody around to see you. We had a couple of memorable run-ins with local landowners or farmers when night riding where we shouldn't have been.
My experience is that in drying conditions the passing of many bike tyres actually improves a surface by flattening and compressing mud; you will often see a smooth "path" through the middle of a patch of older tyre tracks, footprints or hoof marks.
The massive areas of open bog on the tops of mountains are not made by bike tyres but by thousands of walkers striking further and further out in an attempt to find firm ground by which to cross the wet patch. We all do it so we're all guilty.
That said, as a mountain biker for 25 years, I do know that while the majority of mountain bikers respect the footpath restriction, for a small number it's seen as fair game to ride what are called "cheeky trails" at night when there's nobody around to see you. We had a couple of memorable run-ins with local landowners or farmers when night riding where we shouldn't have been.
In reply to Bulls Crack:
Back in the mists of time I was briefly a researcher in transport and upland management. My (vague) memory is that impact of a vehicle on the ground was proportional to the square of the axle (or equivalent) weight divided by the area in contact with the ground at any given moment. Guessing that an average walkers foot has about 3 times the area in contact as an MTB tyre and an MTB weighs about a quarter as much as an average person, then this would give about 4.5 times the impact for an MTB as opposed to a person.
In my experience most mountain bikers are pretty responsible about where they ride, and both they and most walkers care a lot about the places they have their fun.
(you can tell it's a slow day at work)
Iain
Back in the mists of time I was briefly a researcher in transport and upland management. My (vague) memory is that impact of a vehicle on the ground was proportional to the square of the axle (or equivalent) weight divided by the area in contact with the ground at any given moment. Guessing that an average walkers foot has about 3 times the area in contact as an MTB tyre and an MTB weighs about a quarter as much as an average person, then this would give about 4.5 times the impact for an MTB as opposed to a person.
In my experience most mountain bikers are pretty responsible about where they ride, and both they and most walkers care a lot about the places they have their fun.
(you can tell it's a slow day at work)
Iain
In reply to Trangia:
Have a read of the various studies listed here, which conclude that MTBs do not cause significantly more erosion than walkers
https://www.imba.com/resources/research/trail-science/natural-resource-impa...
Then again, the amount of mud on my bike after a long ride in the peak has clearly come from somewhere, so I do think it is imperative for MTBers to act responsibly when the ground is soft. MTB tracks are often more visible than footprints, which isn't the same as being more damaging
Have a read of the various studies listed here, which conclude that MTBs do not cause significantly more erosion than walkers
https://www.imba.com/resources/research/trail-science/natural-resource-impa...
Then again, the amount of mud on my bike after a long ride in the peak has clearly come from somewhere, so I do think it is imperative for MTBers to act responsibly when the ground is soft. MTB tracks are often more visible than footprints, which isn't the same as being more damaging
In reply to Trangia:
Let's just get this in perspective: who made all the massive footpath scars up our mountains, many of which became such eyesores that millions of pounds had to be spent in landscaping them?
Not mountain bikers.
Let's just get this in perspective: who made all the massive footpath scars up our mountains, many of which became such eyesores that millions of pounds had to be spent in landscaping them?
Not mountain bikers.
1
In reply to Rigid Raider:
http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/article-1355806001580/
In the Lakes: £250,000 per mile to repair ....
http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/article-1355806001580/
In the Lakes: £250,000 per mile to repair ....
In reply to Trangia:
I think anyone who has spent more than the last 10 years out in the hills there are 2 obvious facts;
1) On wet 'soil' based paths, mountain bikes cause far more damage per user than someone on foot.
2) It is increasingly common to see mountain bikers in areas where they are banned. In my experience these cyclists fall equally into two groups - those who are there unwittingly, and those who know it's banned but don't give a toss because they can get away with it.
I think anyone who has spent more than the last 10 years out in the hills there are 2 obvious facts;
1) On wet 'soil' based paths, mountain bikes cause far more damage per user than someone on foot.
2) It is increasingly common to see mountain bikers in areas where they are banned. In my experience these cyclists fall equally into two groups - those who are there unwittingly, and those who know it's banned but don't give a toss because they can get away with it.
In reply to Rigid Raider:
I am not certain what you are suggesting here as I had already conceded that boots have caused cumulative damage in my OP.
Are you saying that because footfall has caused considerable damage there is no need to worry about the more immediate damage now being caused by mountain bike tyres particularly on wet grass?
Anyway there have been some informed and constructive comments in this thread concerning this and it is clear that we all cause cumulative damage by using these paths.
it's a matter of all users acting responsibly. Ideally we shouldn't cycle or walk on them when the ground has been softened by rain - but that's not going to happen.
I am not certain what you are suggesting here as I had already conceded that boots have caused cumulative damage in my OP.
Are you saying that because footfall has caused considerable damage there is no need to worry about the more immediate damage now being caused by mountain bike tyres particularly on wet grass?
Anyway there have been some informed and constructive comments in this thread concerning this and it is clear that we all cause cumulative damage by using these paths.
it's a matter of all users acting responsibly. Ideally we shouldn't cycle or walk on them when the ground has been softened by rain - but that's not going to happen.
In reply to Trangia:
But it does to some extent already.
The Keeper of the Peak Twitter feed tries to supply info for MTBer to do this and many bikers in the Peak do stay away from certain trails in winter. https://twitter.com/KoftheP
Plus Ride Sheffield and PDMTB help to advocate good trail use and open up new trails. And help to stop DCC flattening everything with inappropriate surfacing!
> it's a matter of all users acting responsibly. Ideally we shouldn't cycle or walk on them when the ground has been softened by rain - but that's not going to happen.
But it does to some extent already.
The Keeper of the Peak Twitter feed tries to supply info for MTBer to do this and many bikers in the Peak do stay away from certain trails in winter. https://twitter.com/KoftheP
Plus Ride Sheffield and PDMTB help to advocate good trail use and open up new trails. And help to stop DCC flattening everything with inappropriate surfacing!
1
In reply to MattDTC:
You'll have to explain that one to me. Not aware of any widespread bans? And what do you actually mean by 'banned'?
This may help you:
http://www.ctc.org.uk/article/campaigns-guide/cycling-on-footpath-trespass
Only applies to England/Wales. As usual, Scotland has its own (typically more sensible) way of doing things and there is no differentiation between on-foot and on pedal with regards to access (AFAIK).
> 2) It is increasingly common to see mountain bikers in areas where they are banned
You'll have to explain that one to me. Not aware of any widespread bans? And what do you actually mean by 'banned'?
This may help you:
http://www.ctc.org.uk/article/campaigns-guide/cycling-on-footpath-trespass
Only applies to England/Wales. As usual, Scotland has its own (typically more sensible) way of doing things and there is no differentiation between on-foot and on pedal with regards to access (AFAIK).
1
In reply to Trangia:
There's a rarely used grassy byway near my house that I occasionally cycle up and down. When it had been very wet onces, I left some unsightly marks. I was feeling a bit guilty, but 5 days later when I went that way again, there was absolutely no sign of my passing. Make of that what you will, but I was very surprised. Obviously this wouldn't work on a busy route but I was impressed how the ground had healed itself
There's a rarely used grassy byway near my house that I occasionally cycle up and down. When it had been very wet onces, I left some unsightly marks. I was feeling a bit guilty, but 5 days later when I went that way again, there was absolutely no sign of my passing. Make of that what you will, but I was very surprised. Obviously this wouldn't work on a busy route but I was impressed how the ground had healed itself
In reply to Trangia: You are joking? I mean you have to be , surely? Please get off your high horse and really rationalise about what you are saying. Bicycle tyres are causing erosion to our countryside? Think about it. Maybe this will help. I have been using a footpath for years in the Longedale Valley that is very naughty of me I hear you say. Sometimes I leave tewible tyre trails when it is muddy and occasionally I terrify the odd walker by going too fast and too close and spwashing them with mud. I have never ever hurt anyone and the tyre trails at worst are trampled into nothing by mid May. Within the next few years though I shan't be able to make anymore dwedful tyre tracks on this designated footpath. Simply because they are about to build a six lane Motorway right across the whole jeffin valley. For god sake get a perspective. Use that energy to get more access for everyone. To stop managing the countryside for livestock and game and identify who the real enemy is. Not a fellow person who just wishes to use the countryside for much the same reasons as you.
> I recently walked the Offa's Dyke path and was surprised to see just how much damage mountain bike tyres cause to the paths, particularly to grass. This is far worse than the damage caused by the boots of walkers - they cause damage too but this tends to be cumulative over a long period of time. Tyres were causing instant damage, particularly on wet grass or soft ground.
> Much of the Path is banned to bikes (probably for this reason) but again I was surprised how many cylclists ignored this ban (request?).
> I don't have a mountain bike at present, so maybe have become more conscious of the problem, but is there a risk that mountain bikers will start to be viewed adversely in the same way that 4x4 off roaders and trials bikes are?
> I've always believed in live and let live but maybe some sectors of the outdoor world are causing a disproportionate amount of enviromental damage?
1
In reply to MattDTC:
You'll see me on my bike on some footpaths here in the lakes, but not anywhere where bikes are 'banned'. Where might these 'bans' be?
You'll see me on my bike on some footpaths here in the lakes, but not anywhere where bikes are 'banned'. Where might these 'bans' be?
1
In reply to ChrisJD & Tom the Tall;
I used the word 'banned' because the OP had, not because it has any strict definition. My understanding is this;
Bikes have right to access on bridleways and byways.
Bikes do not have rights to access footpaths (legally protected routes that the public can travel along by foot, hence the name) or open access land, without the land owners permission. To do so is to trespass.
Local by-laws may further restrict bikes on bridleways and byways making it a prosecutable offense.
Like I said, MB'ers can often be found on footpaths because they know they can get away with it.
If you look at the general literature supplied by the likes of LDNP, PDNP, ordanance survey, etc, etc, then they all point towards MB'ing on byways, bridleways, or defined routes/areas (eg forestry). Beyond the issues associated with unenforceable trespass and regulation being pre-mountain bikes, I think this gives a clear indication of the general consensus about where it is acceptable to mountain bike in England and Wales. Unfortunately there will always be a percentage of people who don't give a sh*t about anything else other than what they want - which goes, to a greater or lesser extent, for all hill users.
I used the word 'banned' because the OP had, not because it has any strict definition. My understanding is this;
Bikes have right to access on bridleways and byways.
Bikes do not have rights to access footpaths (legally protected routes that the public can travel along by foot, hence the name) or open access land, without the land owners permission. To do so is to trespass.
Local by-laws may further restrict bikes on bridleways and byways making it a prosecutable offense.
Like I said, MB'ers can often be found on footpaths because they know they can get away with it.
If you look at the general literature supplied by the likes of LDNP, PDNP, ordanance survey, etc, etc, then they all point towards MB'ing on byways, bridleways, or defined routes/areas (eg forestry). Beyond the issues associated with unenforceable trespass and regulation being pre-mountain bikes, I think this gives a clear indication of the general consensus about where it is acceptable to mountain bike in England and Wales. Unfortunately there will always be a percentage of people who don't give a sh*t about anything else other than what they want - which goes, to a greater or lesser extent, for all hill users.
In reply to MattDTC:
The PROW in England and Wales is a mess, how individual routes were categorised was completely random some that are designated as footpaths would be fine as bridleways and some bridleways are really footpaths.
The Monk's Road between Malham and Arncliff turns from a bridleway in to a footpath in the middle of nowhere http://streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?X=391532&Y=469660&A=Y&Z=120 - why? It doesn't help that the farmer at the Malham end has padlocked the gates so you can't ride (horse or bike) on the legal section. Another example would be the "bridleway" up Ingleborough - I wonder how many horses have made it to the summit?
Also just because a ROW is a bridleway doesn't mean that it can withstand that level of use. I've a loop of bridleways near my home that I can do at night, it takes about an hour. One section is a bog at this time of year and is basically hike-a-bike. This leads on to a section of the Pennine Way which is either stone track or gritstone flags - I'd cause less damage riding that at any time of year than the legal bridleway. In fact it's more ridable than the bridleway/BOAT that passes our house. As a side note - the landowner tolerates the current level of bikers who do ride it so long as it doesn't get in the way of his activities and since most of the locals ride it at night or in the evening this works out OK. Ride it when there's a group of walkers doing the PW and it would be a different matter.
The PROW in England and Wales is a mess, how individual routes were categorised was completely random some that are designated as footpaths would be fine as bridleways and some bridleways are really footpaths.
The Monk's Road between Malham and Arncliff turns from a bridleway in to a footpath in the middle of nowhere http://streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?X=391532&Y=469660&A=Y&Z=120 - why? It doesn't help that the farmer at the Malham end has padlocked the gates so you can't ride (horse or bike) on the legal section. Another example would be the "bridleway" up Ingleborough - I wonder how many horses have made it to the summit?
Also just because a ROW is a bridleway doesn't mean that it can withstand that level of use. I've a loop of bridleways near my home that I can do at night, it takes about an hour. One section is a bog at this time of year and is basically hike-a-bike. This leads on to a section of the Pennine Way which is either stone track or gritstone flags - I'd cause less damage riding that at any time of year than the legal bridleway. In fact it's more ridable than the bridleway/BOAT that passes our house. As a side note - the landowner tolerates the current level of bikers who do ride it so long as it doesn't get in the way of his activities and since most of the locals ride it at night or in the evening this works out OK. Ride it when there's a group of walkers doing the PW and it would be a different matter.
1
In reply to MattDTC:
Did you read this?
http://www.ctc.org.uk/article/campaigns-guide/cycling-on-footpath-trespass
Written by someone with many years of experience in ROW access matters (Google him).
Did you read this?
http://www.ctc.org.uk/article/campaigns-guide/cycling-on-footpath-trespass
Written by someone with many years of experience in ROW access matters (Google him).
In reply to Trangia:
About 5 years ago a mate and I went up Jacob's Ladder on to Kinder. A rocky path it is too.
At the top a bridleway struck out to the right, over Kinder's famous peat. We realised immediately our bikes were causing an immense amount of damage, so we turned back and went a different way.
As soon as a track gets too muddy, bikers go either side and widen the mud. It wont be long now before the Win Hill Ridge is a 100 yard wide mud bath.
About 5 years ago a mate and I went up Jacob's Ladder on to Kinder. A rocky path it is too.
At the top a bridleway struck out to the right, over Kinder's famous peat. We realised immediately our bikes were causing an immense amount of damage, so we turned back and went a different way.
As soon as a track gets too muddy, bikers go either side and widen the mud. It wont be long now before the Win Hill Ridge is a 100 yard wide mud bath.
Post edited at 10:57
In reply to ChrisJD:
Yes (tedious as it was). I'm no expert on this (and as I alluded to above, given the fact that rights of ways were created prior to mountain bike usage, there is likely no conclusive answer) but the article you link to implies that a footpath is open to anyone (not causing a public or private nuisance). Well this might be correct, but a quick google of 'legal definition of a public footpath' gives the top half dozen links all defining a public footpath as just that; a path to use on foot;
http://www.iprow.co.uk/index.php?page=page&catId=11#2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_of_way_in_England_and_Wales
http://naturenet.net/row/rowdefinitions.html
http://www.bikehub.co.uk/featured-articles/cycling-and-the-law/
http://www.ramblers.org.uk/go-walking/the-expert-view/rights-of-way-and-acc...
http://www.environmentlaw.org.uk/rte.asp?id=207
As I said before, irrespective of the exact terminology which is quite possibly ambiguous, the given consensus (as shown by the above links and the literature from national parks, outdoor organizations, etc, etc, etc, is that footpaths are for those on foot.
> Did you read this?
Yes (tedious as it was). I'm no expert on this (and as I alluded to above, given the fact that rights of ways were created prior to mountain bike usage, there is likely no conclusive answer) but the article you link to implies that a footpath is open to anyone (not causing a public or private nuisance). Well this might be correct, but a quick google of 'legal definition of a public footpath' gives the top half dozen links all defining a public footpath as just that; a path to use on foot;
http://www.iprow.co.uk/index.php?page=page&catId=11#2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_of_way_in_England_and_Wales
http://naturenet.net/row/rowdefinitions.html
http://www.bikehub.co.uk/featured-articles/cycling-and-the-law/
http://www.ramblers.org.uk/go-walking/the-expert-view/rights-of-way-and-acc...
http://www.environmentlaw.org.uk/rte.asp?id=207
As I said before, irrespective of the exact terminology which is quite possibly ambiguous, the given consensus (as shown by the above links and the literature from national parks, outdoor organizations, etc, etc, etc, is that footpaths are for those on foot.
Post edited at 11:42
In reply to Fredt:
I'm confused. At the top of Jacobs Ladder the BW goes straight over (west) towards Hayfield. There is not a BW going north or south from the top. There is one much further down on the western side that contours northwards around towards Kinder Reservoir (never ridden it), but its not on Kinder proper.
> About 5 years ago a mate and I went up Jacob's Ladder on to Kinder. A rocky path it is too.
> At the top a bridleway struck out to the right, over Kinder's famous peat. We realised immediately our bikes were causing an immense amount of damage, so we turned back and went a different way.
I'm confused. At the top of Jacobs Ladder the BW goes straight over (west) towards Hayfield. There is not a BW going north or south from the top. There is one much further down on the western side that contours northwards around towards Kinder Reservoir (never ridden it), but its not on Kinder proper.
1
In reply to Fredt:
Walkers start avoiding muddy sections long before mountain bikers do. The problem on win hill has been caused by 4x4s/trail bikes creating really deep ruts - most MTBers will avoid riding through stuff that is likely to be over a foot deep (though I have been known to try). If go up Win Hill on the Aston BW there are no such problems - it's a lovely climb.
> As soon as a track gets too muddy, bikers go either side and widen the mud. It wont be long now before the Win Hill Ridge is a 100 yard wide mud bath.
Walkers start avoiding muddy sections long before mountain bikers do. The problem on win hill has been caused by 4x4s/trail bikes creating really deep ruts - most MTBers will avoid riding through stuff that is likely to be over a foot deep (though I have been known to try). If go up Win Hill on the Aston BW there are no such problems - it's a lovely climb.
In reply to ChrisJD:
Adding to my reply above, the government also defines a footpath for those on foot, as oppose to bridleways where bikes/horses can be used;
https://www.gov.uk/right-of-way-open-access-land/use-public-rights-of-way
Adding to my reply above, the government also defines a footpath for those on foot, as oppose to bridleways where bikes/horses can be used;
https://www.gov.uk/right-of-way-open-access-land/use-public-rights-of-way
In reply to ChrisJD:
Not actually a lawyer though.
From Highways act 1980
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/66/section/329
“footpath” means a highway over which the public have a right of way on foot only, not being a footway;
I'd put the mortgage on him loosing a case with that argument.
> Did you read this?
> Written by someone with many years of experience in ROW access matters (Google him).
Not actually a lawyer though.
From Highways act 1980
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/66/section/329
“footpath” means a highway over which the public have a right of way on foot only, not being a footway;
I'd put the mortgage on him loosing a case with that argument.
Post edited at 12:03
In reply to MattDTC:
Legal nuances are typically tedious...
And the interesting thing is that the links you provide all also describe additional things you can do on a footpath that constitute reasonable use when exercising legal authority to cross land using a ROW . These include prams, wheelchairs, taking a dog etc etc.
Many state that cycling on a footpath is trespass, which may not be true
It may well be that the term footpath is a misnomer and that reasonable use in exercising legal authority to cross land using a 'footpath' ROW could also include cycling along it.
It would clearly be the Agenda of some user groups not want that to be the case, even if it is the actual legal position.
Scotland and mainland Europe) don't have this foot/cycle separation and the sky hasn't fallen in!
Legal nuances are typically tedious...
And the interesting thing is that the links you provide all also describe additional things you can do on a footpath that constitute reasonable use when exercising legal authority to cross land using a ROW . These include prams, wheelchairs, taking a dog etc etc.
Many state that cycling on a footpath is trespass, which may not be true
It may well be that the term footpath is a misnomer and that reasonable use in exercising legal authority to cross land using a 'footpath' ROW could also include cycling along it.
It would clearly be the Agenda of some user groups not want that to be the case, even if it is the actual legal position.
Scotland and mainland Europe) don't have this foot/cycle separation and the sky hasn't fallen in!
Post edited at 12:09
1
1
In reply to ChrisJD:
MTBs are currently in the same position faced by ramblers in the 30s - access legislation has not kept up with the legitimate desires of people to use the countryside for leisure activities. The current legislation on bridleways dates from the '60s and mountain biking arrived in the '80s. Lumping bikes in with horses is clearly a nonsense - the latter cause far more erosion and have more demanding requirements - width of track, gates etc. It's perfectly possible to carry a bike over a stile, but try doing that with a horse !
Unfortunately the poachers have turned gamekeepers, or at least joined forces with them. I'm all in favour of the CROW act, but now ramblers can go wherever they want, shouldn't they be a bit more prepared to share ?
MTBs are currently in the same position faced by ramblers in the 30s - access legislation has not kept up with the legitimate desires of people to use the countryside for leisure activities. The current legislation on bridleways dates from the '60s and mountain biking arrived in the '80s. Lumping bikes in with horses is clearly a nonsense - the latter cause far more erosion and have more demanding requirements - width of track, gates etc. It's perfectly possible to carry a bike over a stile, but try doing that with a horse !
Unfortunately the poachers have turned gamekeepers, or at least joined forces with them. I'm all in favour of the CROW act, but now ramblers can go wherever they want, shouldn't they be a bit more prepared to share ?
1
In reply to ChrisJD:
If you only have a right to be there on foot, then clearly being on a bike without permission is trespassing.
> The issue is whether it is trespass.
If you only have a right to be there on foot, then clearly being on a bike without permission is trespassing.
Post edited at 12:37
In reply to ChrisJD:
Yup, and it's pretty unambiguous
'public have a right of way on foot only'
> The issue is whether it is trespass.
Yup, and it's pretty unambiguous
'public have a right of way on foot only'
In reply to Mike Stretford:
You are both confusing "right" with "trespass" and seem to believe that transgressing the first automatically leads to the second
You are both confusing "right" with "trespass" and seem to believe that transgressing the first automatically leads to the second
Post edited at 13:16
1
In reply to MattDTC:
It still may not constitute trespass.
> If you only have a right to be there on foot, then clearly being on a bike without permission is trespassing.
It still may not constitute trespass.
1
In reply to Mike Stretford:
It still may not constitute trespass.
> Yup, and it's pretty unambiguous
> 'public have a right of way on foot only'
It still may not constitute trespass.
1
In reply to Mike Stretford:
By this strict definition, pushchairs and wheelchairs and dogs (on paw) are excluded.
Not so unambiguous now is it?
> 'public have a right of way on foot only'
By this strict definition, pushchairs and wheelchairs and dogs (on paw) are excluded.
Not so unambiguous now is it?
Post edited at 13:22
1
In reply to MattDTC: trespass is a civil matter, rather than criminal, and the landowner would need to show a pecuniary loss as a result of your actions. In my area, as discussed by others above, there are BWs that are absolutely unsuitable for biking from a sustainability ointment of view, and footpaths that easily support farm vehicles, bikes etc. Erosion and sustainability are much bigger issues than just rights of way disagreements.
1
In reply to Bob:
No we're not.
You disagree with this then?
http://www.plymouth.gov.uk/homepage/transportandroads/walkingandcycling/pro...
I'm sure there are caveat but in the context of this discussion it does.
(edit: forgot link sorry)
> You are both confusing "right" with "trespass"
No we're not.
> seem to believe that transgressing the first automatically leads to the second
You disagree with this then?
http://www.plymouth.gov.uk/homepage/transportandroads/walkingandcycling/pro...
I'm sure there are caveat but in the context of this discussion it does.
(edit: forgot link sorry)
Post edited at 13:37
In reply to ChrisJD:
I think it is, I'd still bet the mortgage.
By all means keep pushing but if the RA pressured the National Parks to prosecute I'm sure it would get cleared up. That would establish a precedent in civil law but It wouldn't be long before the government sniffed votes and brought a tougher law in.
> By this strict definition, pushchairs and wheelchairs and dogs (on paw) are excluded.
> Not so unambiguous now is it?
I think it is, I'd still bet the mortgage.
By all means keep pushing but if the RA pressured the National Parks to prosecute I'm sure it would get cleared up. That would establish a precedent in civil law but It wouldn't be long before the government sniffed votes and brought a tougher law in.
In reply to Chris the Tall:
They could do with some orgabisation, there's the CTC but I know most MTBers would disagree with this
http://www.ctc.org.uk/category/tags/bridleways
> MTBs are currently in the same position faced by ramblers in the 30s - access legislation has not kept up with the legitimate desires of people to use the countryside for leisure activities.
They could do with some orgabisation, there's the CTC but I know most MTBers would disagree with this
http://www.ctc.org.uk/category/tags/bridleways
In reply to Mike Stretford:
Sorry but you are.
If I rode a bicycle on a motorway then I'm breaking the law because I don't have the "right" to be there, I'm a restricted vehicle. But I haven't committed trespass.
In the context of the OP of this thread, if I ride a bike on a footpath then the possessor (landowner or tenant or agent typically) would have to show that I caused damage in excess of that if I had been on foot. For this to get in to a (civil) court then the damage would have to be well in excess.
For background info: I grew up on a Lakeland farm with several rights of way across it; most of my family are Lakeland farmers. I'm not coming at this from the "I can do what I want, the bourgeois capitalist farmers can get ****ed" viewpoint, rather this thing called "real life". We'd have people missing paths, etc and finding themselves in the middle of a crop of whatever - the conversation would be: "You're lost aren't you?", "Err, yes". A bit of a chat and we'd find where they were heading and give them suitable directions.
Sorry but you are.
If I rode a bicycle on a motorway then I'm breaking the law because I don't have the "right" to be there, I'm a restricted vehicle. But I haven't committed trespass.
In the context of the OP of this thread, if I ride a bike on a footpath then the possessor (landowner or tenant or agent typically) would have to show that I caused damage in excess of that if I had been on foot. For this to get in to a (civil) court then the damage would have to be well in excess.
For background info: I grew up on a Lakeland farm with several rights of way across it; most of my family are Lakeland farmers. I'm not coming at this from the "I can do what I want, the bourgeois capitalist farmers can get ****ed" viewpoint, rather this thing called "real life". We'd have people missing paths, etc and finding themselves in the middle of a crop of whatever - the conversation would be: "You're lost aren't you?", "Err, yes". A bit of a chat and we'd find where they were heading and give them suitable directions.
In reply to Bob:
Oh no I'm not.
No that's criminal
http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn05116.pdf
and from the link
Criminal prosecution could only arise if a trespasser damages property. Unless a landowner can prove that their land or property was damaged in some way they could only really recover nominal damages by suing a trespasser.
> Sorry but you are.
Oh no I'm not.
> In the context of the OP of this thread, if I ride a bike on a footpath then the possessor (landowner or tenant or agent typically) would have to show that I caused damage in excess of that if I had been on foot. For this to get in to a (civil) court then the damage would have to be well in excess.
No that's criminal
http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn05116.pdf
and from the link
Criminal prosecution could only arise if a trespasser damages property. Unless a landowner can prove that their land or property was damaged in some way they could only really recover nominal damages by suing a trespasser.
In reply to Mike Stretford:
There is not much to disagree with there.
In line with that, if a cyclist is on a footpath they would be on a ROW - potentially not therefore not fulling the requirements for Trespass (full circle back my original link) .
It is strange how you would accept taking certain wheeled objects along a footpath (pram, wheel chair), but not other wheeled (non-motorised) objects like a bike.
The key argument (with regard to Trespass) is that if being on foot/with-pram/in-wheelchair/with-dog/stopping-to-look-at-view are reasonable uses of a ROW , then it would be somewhat disproportionate for the landowner to then claim that having a bike along the same ROW was not also reasonable use and therefore trespass.
There is not much to disagree with there.
In line with that, if a cyclist is on a footpath they would be on a ROW - potentially not therefore not fulling the requirements for Trespass (full circle back my original link) .
It is strange how you would accept taking certain wheeled objects along a footpath (pram, wheel chair), but not other wheeled (non-motorised) objects like a bike.
The key argument (with regard to Trespass) is that if being on foot/with-pram/in-wheelchair/with-dog/stopping-to-look-at-view are reasonable uses of a ROW , then it would be somewhat disproportionate for the landowner to then claim that having a bike along the same ROW was not also reasonable use and therefore trespass.
2
In reply to ChrisJD:
As stated numerous times above, the consensus shows there is no real ambiguity (see list of links including national parks, ordnance survey, IPROW, UK Goverment, etc, ......) apart from a few persistent folk who will persist in pursuing their own self interests in spite of this.
> By this strict definition, pushchairs and wheelchairs and dogs (on paw) are excluded.
> Not so unambiguous now is it?
As stated numerous times above, the consensus shows there is no real ambiguity (see list of links including national parks, ordnance survey, IPROW, UK Goverment, etc, ......) apart from a few persistent folk who will persist in pursuing their own self interests in spite of this.
In reply to Bob:
Absolutely, and the 'real life' conventional wisdom regarding were MTBs can go is based on statute, contrary to Chris's article. In 'real life' I expect discreet MTBers will be fine in suitable footpaths but if they get too aggresive as a group, then sooner or later there'll be a case.
> For background info: I grew up on a Lakeland farm with several rights of way across it; most of my family are Lakeland farmers. I'm not coming at this from the "I can do what I want, the bourgeois capitalist farmers can get ****ed" viewpoint, rather this thing called "real life".
Absolutely, and the 'real life' conventional wisdom regarding were MTBs can go is based on statute, contrary to Chris's article. In 'real life' I expect discreet MTBers will be fine in suitable footpaths but if they get too aggresive as a group, then sooner or later there'll be a case.
Post edited at 14:11
In reply to ChrisJD:
Out of interest, if it was all up to you, how would you set it (bikes, footpaths, etc) all up?
Out of interest, if it was all up to you, how would you set it (bikes, footpaths, etc) all up?
In reply to MattDTC:
I know you didn't aim the question at me but ...
Basically the Scottish model - I haven't seen any (credible) evidence that it's unduly affected landowners or farmers. I'm sure there have been instances where someone's been irresponsible and there's been action taken but part of the legislation is that the right to use the land freely comes with a responsibility to act in a sensible manner. I think that after a short "free for all" the routes would naturally sort themselves in to ridable and non-ridable. This is for open, non-arable land BTW, there's little to be gained from unfettered access across fields of crops.
I know you didn't aim the question at me but ...
Basically the Scottish model - I haven't seen any (credible) evidence that it's unduly affected landowners or farmers. I'm sure there have been instances where someone's been irresponsible and there's been action taken but part of the legislation is that the right to use the land freely comes with a responsibility to act in a sensible manner. I think that after a short "free for all" the routes would naturally sort themselves in to ridable and non-ridable. This is for open, non-arable land BTW, there's little to be gained from unfettered access across fields of crops.
1
In reply to Mike Stretford:
That parliamentary paper certainly clarifies that being on the land without having a 'right' would not, in itself, giver grounds for any sort of action.
It also clarifies that damage is one of the aggravating factors that might lead to a police officer backing up a previous landowner request for someone to leave.
Criminal damage is a different thing - if you meet that threshold then the issue of trespass is not really the salient one.
Bob's fundamental point is correct, and quite important.
I don't have an explicit right to wiggle my elbows on the Kings Road, but no-one can prosecute me if I do.
I don't have an explicit right to rearrange the goods in a department store, but though it might cause some consternation (and might, incidentally involve some offences if I do it in a rough or aggressive way), no-one can prosecute me if I do.
I don't have a right to punch strangers in the face - there also happen to be laws under which I could be prosecuted for doing so.
Having a right to do something is a bar against actions that prevent you from doing it.
Not having a right to do something means that such preventive actions could be taken. Whether they are, and what kind of actions are available, is a completely separate point. As such, landowners are normally expected to explicitly state that bikes etc are not allowed on a particular trail and/or to explictly ask them to leave before they can seek to have people removed. The issue of damage is a separate one, civil or criminal depending on the extent and nature of the damage. 'Trespass' is only really invoked for the purpose of removing people where there is some broader kind of harm being caused.
The semantics are not so important in the end though, since:
- Landowners and users annoying one another is generally not great, regardless of the legal niceties, and
- The access laws are so messy that it's better to focus on the broader question of how appropriate use can be agreed and managed in a clearer way
That parliamentary paper certainly clarifies that being on the land without having a 'right' would not, in itself, giver grounds for any sort of action.
It also clarifies that damage is one of the aggravating factors that might lead to a police officer backing up a previous landowner request for someone to leave.
Criminal damage is a different thing - if you meet that threshold then the issue of trespass is not really the salient one.
Bob's fundamental point is correct, and quite important.
I don't have an explicit right to wiggle my elbows on the Kings Road, but no-one can prosecute me if I do.
I don't have an explicit right to rearrange the goods in a department store, but though it might cause some consternation (and might, incidentally involve some offences if I do it in a rough or aggressive way), no-one can prosecute me if I do.
I don't have a right to punch strangers in the face - there also happen to be laws under which I could be prosecuted for doing so.
Having a right to do something is a bar against actions that prevent you from doing it.
Not having a right to do something means that such preventive actions could be taken. Whether they are, and what kind of actions are available, is a completely separate point. As such, landowners are normally expected to explicitly state that bikes etc are not allowed on a particular trail and/or to explictly ask them to leave before they can seek to have people removed. The issue of damage is a separate one, civil or criminal depending on the extent and nature of the damage. 'Trespass' is only really invoked for the purpose of removing people where there is some broader kind of harm being caused.
The semantics are not so important in the end though, since:
- Landowners and users annoying one another is generally not great, regardless of the legal niceties, and
- The access laws are so messy that it's better to focus on the broader question of how appropriate use can be agreed and managed in a clearer way
1
In reply to MattDTC:
You're right. I think the difficulty comes because trespass isn't really a very important concept/principle in most situations.
The issues of damage, of landowners' rightful concern about safeguarding their property, and of appropriately protecting and managing types of access are not easily discussed in those terms.
That's why I think Bob's basic point is still important - what you have a right to do is only a small slice of what you can or should do, and trespass is not really the thing that puts boundaries around that in most practical contexts.
> Trespass = enter someone's land or property without permission. That's all.
You're right. I think the difficulty comes because trespass isn't really a very important concept/principle in most situations.
The issues of damage, of landowners' rightful concern about safeguarding their property, and of appropriately protecting and managing types of access are not easily discussed in those terms.
That's why I think Bob's basic point is still important - what you have a right to do is only a small slice of what you can or should do, and trespass is not really the thing that puts boundaries around that in most practical contexts.
In reply to MattDTC:
It could be approached in a numbers of different ways....
The first stage of a compromise solution could be along the lines of:
- Iron out obvious administrative anomalies (e.g BW changing to FP at ward/county boundaries)
- Upgrade FP to BW where the FP is a double track or well established track etc (e.g. like the permissive BW along top of Froggatt /Curbar)
- Remembering that bikers have zero interest in bog trotting
More contentious! (and I'm not sure I'd want this!):
- Allow full access to whole network, with local sensitivities taken into account (blimey - that would be a tough nut to crack)
More of a realistic middle ground::
- Agree much more FP access by bikes in National Parks. This should be led by advocacy groups and LAFs (local access forums). It shouldn't happen overnight as a free-for all. Perhaps make it a statutory duty for NPA to review and upgrade ROWs.
- Perhaps tempered with seasonal or time restrictions for use, or no/limited use during winter months etc. - e.g BWs on Snowdon have a voluntary ban before 5 pm during summers months. Bikers have been praised by the NP for their adherence and behavior on the mountain. There is great understandings between some landowners and bikers in the Peak.
Overall, would just like to see a more grown up attitude towards it !
There are clearly so many FP that could easily be used by bikes without significant additional impact (perhaps even only part time off-peak use).
... I can feel the red socks melting....
It could be approached in a numbers of different ways....
The first stage of a compromise solution could be along the lines of:
- Iron out obvious administrative anomalies (e.g BW changing to FP at ward/county boundaries)
- Upgrade FP to BW where the FP is a double track or well established track etc (e.g. like the permissive BW along top of Froggatt /Curbar)
- Remembering that bikers have zero interest in bog trotting
More contentious! (and I'm not sure I'd want this!):
- Allow full access to whole network, with local sensitivities taken into account (blimey - that would be a tough nut to crack)
More of a realistic middle ground::
- Agree much more FP access by bikes in National Parks. This should be led by advocacy groups and LAFs (local access forums). It shouldn't happen overnight as a free-for all. Perhaps make it a statutory duty for NPA to review and upgrade ROWs.
- Perhaps tempered with seasonal or time restrictions for use, or no/limited use during winter months etc. - e.g BWs on Snowdon have a voluntary ban before 5 pm during summers months. Bikers have been praised by the NP for their adherence and behavior on the mountain. There is great understandings between some landowners and bikers in the Peak.
Overall, would just like to see a more grown up attitude towards it !
There are clearly so many FP that could easily be used by bikes without significant additional impact (perhaps even only part time off-peak use).
... I can feel the red socks melting....
Post edited at 15:13
1
In reply to Removed User:
No, quite the opposite. There are other caveats at the end with 'right of way' but they don't apply within the context of this discussion.
In civil law, trespass to land consists of any unjustifiable intrusion by a person upon the land
in possession of another. Winfield and Jolowicz notes that in civil law, trespass is actionable
in the courts whether or not the claimant has suffered any damage. It states that:
"This rule may seem harsh but in earlier times trespass was likely to lead to a breach of
the peace and even trivial deviations on to another person’s land were reckoned
unlawful. Whether or not there is now greater respect for the law, the theoretical
severity of the rules as to land trespass is rarely exploited in practice. As an action will
not normally be brought for trespass without damage unless the claimant wishes to
deter persistent trespassing or there are disputes over boundaries or rights of way."
The slightest crossing of the claimant’s boundary is sufficient to result in a trespass. In the
case of Ellis v Loftus Iron Co6
the court stated that “if the defendant place[s] a part of his foot
on the claimant’s land unlawfully, it is in law as much a trespass as if he had walked half a
mile on it.”7
Examples of civil trespass include removing any part of the land in the possession of
another, or any part of a building or other erection attached to the soil. It can also be a
trespass to place something on, or in, land in the possession of another – such as dumping
rubbish.8
There are a number of legal justifications to trespass, including: licence to enter by law,
justification by right of way or easement, justification by licence or necessity and various
powers of entry granted to officers of the law, such as the police.9
> That parliamentary paper certainly clarifies that being on the land without having a 'right' would not, in itself, giver grounds for any sort of action.
No, quite the opposite. There are other caveats at the end with 'right of way' but they don't apply within the context of this discussion.
In civil law, trespass to land consists of any unjustifiable intrusion by a person upon the land
in possession of another. Winfield and Jolowicz notes that in civil law, trespass is actionable
in the courts whether or not the claimant has suffered any damage. It states that:
"This rule may seem harsh but in earlier times trespass was likely to lead to a breach of
the peace and even trivial deviations on to another person’s land were reckoned
unlawful. Whether or not there is now greater respect for the law, the theoretical
severity of the rules as to land trespass is rarely exploited in practice. As an action will
not normally be brought for trespass without damage unless the claimant wishes to
deter persistent trespassing or there are disputes over boundaries or rights of way."
The slightest crossing of the claimant’s boundary is sufficient to result in a trespass. In the
case of Ellis v Loftus Iron Co6
the court stated that “if the defendant place[s] a part of his foot
on the claimant’s land unlawfully, it is in law as much a trespass as if he had walked half a
mile on it.”7
Examples of civil trespass include removing any part of the land in the possession of
another, or any part of a building or other erection attached to the soil. It can also be a
trespass to place something on, or in, land in the possession of another – such as dumping
rubbish.8
There are a number of legal justifications to trespass, including: licence to enter by law,
justification by right of way or easement, justification by licence or necessity and various
powers of entry granted to officers of the law, such as the police.9
Post edited at 14:56
In reply to Removed User:
I agree. I think the only real vale of 'trespass' in this situation is to draw a line in the sand for the general public to show what is considered 'acceptable' and what isn't. Currently, in most cases it works.
I agree. I think the only real vale of 'trespass' in this situation is to draw a line in the sand for the general public to show what is considered 'acceptable' and what isn't. Currently, in most cases it works.
In reply to Bob:
I get the impression you are right in saying that the Scottish model works for Scotland (I can't really comment since I only go up in winter). But particularly in the Peak I would say the Scottish model would be a disaster. Mainly because the density of users is so much greater on a much smaller area, but also because much of the Dark peak is wet and soft peat moorland which is already badly eroded. I just don't think it would be sustainable. Personally I think more should be done to restrict access (for all users) to these areas rather than increasing the pressure on them.
I get the impression you are right in saying that the Scottish model works for Scotland (I can't really comment since I only go up in winter). But particularly in the Peak I would say the Scottish model would be a disaster. Mainly because the density of users is so much greater on a much smaller area, but also because much of the Dark peak is wet and soft peat moorland which is already badly eroded. I just don't think it would be sustainable. Personally I think more should be done to restrict access (for all users) to these areas rather than increasing the pressure on them.
In reply to Trangia:
As above. Scottish model, with responsibilities as well as rights of course. And I have absolutely no problem with selected paths being taken out of that mix for good reason eg erosion in a sensitive area or mtbers not acting responsibly.
As above. Scottish model, with responsibilities as well as rights of course. And I have absolutely no problem with selected paths being taken out of that mix for good reason eg erosion in a sensitive area or mtbers not acting responsibly.
In reply to MattDTC:
I know what you mean, the Peak and the Lakes can get pretty crowded. I'm not a Peak local and have only biked there a few times (it takes as long to get there as it does to the Lakes) but even on good days you don't see that many MTBers out though of course if you are travelling in the same direction you might never meet or even see each other.
There's a thread on here about climbing becoming an indoor sport. In a similar manner you get a lot of mountain bikers who never ride anywhere but trail centres in forests (Coed y Brenin, Grizedale, the Seven Stanes, etc). I know that Strava isn't as popular with mountain bikers as it is with roadies so comparing number of rides along a track with those along a road is meaningless but you can compare trail centre use with "natural" trail use. A segment like Hully Gully at Gisburn Forest has had about 15,000 logged descents; Jacob's Ladder in the Peak has had just under 3,000. So that's about a 5:1 ratio. I picked those partly because I know them but partly because they are both technical descents so likely to be done by enthusiastic mountain bikers rather than day trippers or occasional bikers. Choose a ride outside the Peak and the difference is huge: the descent of Mastiles Lane to Kilnsey has just 400 logged descents. Walna Scar has had 800.
So there's both a wide discrepancy between trail centre and natural trail usage, and (an even bigger) one between areas. I think there'd be a lot of conflict if all those who just ride at trail centres were riding the natural trails along with the associated rise in use of footpaths etc.
To extend ChrisJD's list, I'd like to see the bridleway network better connected. At present things are all disjointed and you get to the end of a bridleway and then have a mile or two on road to get to the next one. I think this is a big ask though and unless you could present a coherent safety argument on a case by case basis then it's unlikely to happen.
I know what you mean, the Peak and the Lakes can get pretty crowded. I'm not a Peak local and have only biked there a few times (it takes as long to get there as it does to the Lakes) but even on good days you don't see that many MTBers out though of course if you are travelling in the same direction you might never meet or even see each other.
There's a thread on here about climbing becoming an indoor sport. In a similar manner you get a lot of mountain bikers who never ride anywhere but trail centres in forests (Coed y Brenin, Grizedale, the Seven Stanes, etc). I know that Strava isn't as popular with mountain bikers as it is with roadies so comparing number of rides along a track with those along a road is meaningless but you can compare trail centre use with "natural" trail use. A segment like Hully Gully at Gisburn Forest has had about 15,000 logged descents; Jacob's Ladder in the Peak has had just under 3,000. So that's about a 5:1 ratio. I picked those partly because I know them but partly because they are both technical descents so likely to be done by enthusiastic mountain bikers rather than day trippers or occasional bikers. Choose a ride outside the Peak and the difference is huge: the descent of Mastiles Lane to Kilnsey has just 400 logged descents. Walna Scar has had 800.
So there's both a wide discrepancy between trail centre and natural trail usage, and (an even bigger) one between areas. I think there'd be a lot of conflict if all those who just ride at trail centres were riding the natural trails along with the associated rise in use of footpaths etc.
To extend ChrisJD's list, I'd like to see the bridleway network better connected. At present things are all disjointed and you get to the end of a bridleway and then have a mile or two on road to get to the next one. I think this is a big ask though and unless you could present a coherent safety argument on a case by case basis then it's unlikely to happen.
1
In reply to ChrisJD:
Nice suggestions, and from a MB'ers perspective they sound like they would all be good, although I'm sure in the Peak for example, with such a high density of users, there would be problems (on the ground and financially) in managing/policing this. I think it would also invite more abuse of whatever system is in place.
I think you are right the footpath/bridal way distinction can be a clumsy way of determining where bikes can be used and it could be improved, but it is currently all we have so worth defending in general.
Putting the environmental and management issues to one side, do you agree that many walkers find the presence of MB'ers a real turn off? So while opening up footpaths may be great for MB'ers, it isn't for everyone else.
Someone above said '..ramblers can go wherever they want, shouldn't they be a bit more prepared to share'. For me this distinction is a red herring. I walk, ski, run, surf, ice climb, canoe and I also mountain bike, but I leave the bike at home or locked at the end of a track when it comes to footpaths or open land. I don't begrudge this, I just understand that it's appropriate and so I go for an enjoyable walk or run; it's better for the paths, it's better for other hill users. Maybe the problem comes when we define ourselves as 'a mountain biker' (as an example) and this then becomes more important to us than looking after the finite landscape and the other people within it.
Nice suggestions, and from a MB'ers perspective they sound like they would all be good, although I'm sure in the Peak for example, with such a high density of users, there would be problems (on the ground and financially) in managing/policing this. I think it would also invite more abuse of whatever system is in place.
I think you are right the footpath/bridal way distinction can be a clumsy way of determining where bikes can be used and it could be improved, but it is currently all we have so worth defending in general.
Putting the environmental and management issues to one side, do you agree that many walkers find the presence of MB'ers a real turn off? So while opening up footpaths may be great for MB'ers, it isn't for everyone else.
Someone above said '..ramblers can go wherever they want, shouldn't they be a bit more prepared to share'. For me this distinction is a red herring. I walk, ski, run, surf, ice climb, canoe and I also mountain bike, but I leave the bike at home or locked at the end of a track when it comes to footpaths or open land. I don't begrudge this, I just understand that it's appropriate and so I go for an enjoyable walk or run; it's better for the paths, it's better for other hill users. Maybe the problem comes when we define ourselves as 'a mountain biker' (as an example) and this then becomes more important to us than looking after the finite landscape and the other people within it.
In reply to Removed User:
Great reply. The hills are ravaged by tree eating scum sheep.
> have you seen how much damage sheep and cattle have done to the landscape, sod mountain bikers and walkers, there are sheep paths everywhere, and cattle destroy fields and streams.....
Great reply. The hills are ravaged by tree eating scum sheep.
In reply to MattDTC:
I wouldn't say "many", "some" would be more accurate in my experience. On Sunday in the Dales it was fairly deserted but met three groups of walkers and all were friendly and had a chat. In the Peak a couple of weeks ago we were on a bridleway (it was the one up to Williamson's monument from Baslow so tarmac/stone) and one walker completely blanked us, the next two were most chatty and pleasant.
Some people don't like anyone not in their "tribe", it doesn't matter what other people do, it's wrong.
I wouldn't say "many", "some" would be more accurate in my experience. On Sunday in the Dales it was fairly deserted but met three groups of walkers and all were friendly and had a chat. In the Peak a couple of weeks ago we were on a bridleway (it was the one up to Williamson's monument from Baslow so tarmac/stone) and one walker completely blanked us, the next two were most chatty and pleasant.
Some people don't like anyone not in their "tribe", it doesn't matter what other people do, it's wrong.
1
In reply to MattDTC:
TBH. 95%+ of the walkers I encounter are really friendly and haven't any issue at all. But then I go out of my way to be as friendly as possible. But we also typically ride locally off-peak or at night, so we usually have the Peak to ourselves. The Peak is actually pretty empty the majority of the time; its only really Saturday and Sunday day time that its busy (but lets keep that to ourselves eh).
Its usually male older Walkers (i use the capital intentionally, lol) who tend openly disapprove. This was really evident when I rode up Snowdon last week But then they are usually easy to spot, so extra niceness tends to makes it awkward for them to be too nasty.
Plus I don't think I would advocate a free for all - just a more equitable and logical approach to access, with restrictions if necessary.
Need to add - lived and worked inside the Peak Park for nearly 20 years now. Used to consider myself an all round climber, now I predominately bike. (Off road only course, would never align myself with those unhappy grumpy road riding lot, lol).
> Putting the environmental and management issues to one side, do you agree that many walkers find the presence of MB'ers a real turn off? So while opening up footpaths may be great for MB'ers, it isn't for everyone else.
TBH. 95%+ of the walkers I encounter are really friendly and haven't any issue at all. But then I go out of my way to be as friendly as possible. But we also typically ride locally off-peak or at night, so we usually have the Peak to ourselves. The Peak is actually pretty empty the majority of the time; its only really Saturday and Sunday day time that its busy (but lets keep that to ourselves eh).
Its usually male older Walkers (i use the capital intentionally, lol) who tend openly disapprove. This was really evident when I rode up Snowdon last week But then they are usually easy to spot, so extra niceness tends to makes it awkward for them to be too nasty.
Plus I don't think I would advocate a free for all - just a more equitable and logical approach to access, with restrictions if necessary.
Need to add - lived and worked inside the Peak Park for nearly 20 years now. Used to consider myself an all round climber, now I predominately bike. (Off road only course, would never align myself with those unhappy grumpy road riding lot, lol).
Post edited at 16:30
In reply to Trangia:
'tis a shame Snowdon Railway don't offer an uplift service for mountain bikes, a missed opportunity methinks.
'tis a shame Snowdon Railway don't offer an uplift service for mountain bikes, a missed opportunity methinks.
1
1
1
In reply to ChrisJD:
ha ha, the other day I saw some downhill bikers pushing their bikes up a not very steep hill (road) which is on the way to a well known downhill path. They all looked incredibly unfit and knackered. No link intended to your good self, you just reminded me is all.
ha ha, the other day I saw some downhill bikers pushing their bikes up a not very steep hill (road) which is on the way to a well known downhill path. They all looked incredibly unfit and knackered. No link intended to your good self, you just reminded me is all.
In reply to Trangia:
Firstly DH bikers don't actually do much cycling and secondly those bikes are just motorbikes without engines so they weigh a lot.
Firstly DH bikers don't actually do much cycling and secondly those bikes are just motorbikes without engines so they weigh a lot.
In reply to ChrisJD:
Predominantly yes but in all fairness there wasn't much riding happening on the way down (Rangers Path) for long sections and the guys I was with were pretty dedicated off-roaders.
> (In reply to DubyaJamesDubya)
>
> [...]
>
> You must be a Roadie. lol
>
> [...]
>
> You must be a Roadie. lol
Predominantly yes but in all fairness there wasn't much riding happening on the way down (Rangers Path) for long sections and the guys I was with were pretty dedicated off-roaders.
In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:
Lol, your mates need to try harder ;-0
I got down from the railway line to the first gate in under 9 minutes, Amongst the best bit of riding of the whole year (some of the stuff on Corsica this summer was pretty wild and that was on a hardtail!)
> there wasn't much riding happening on the way down (Rangers Path) for long sections and the guys I was with were pretty dedicated off-roaders.
Lol, your mates need to try harder ;-0
I got down from the railway line to the first gate in under 9 minutes, Amongst the best bit of riding of the whole year (some of the stuff on Corsica this summer was pretty wild and that was on a hardtail!)
In reply to ChrisJD:
"would never align myself with those unhappy grumpy road riding lot"
Strange that, I always view the off road bike user as a bit grumpy, they never seem to acknowledge any social greetings
"would never align myself with those unhappy grumpy road riding lot"
Strange that, I always view the off road bike user as a bit grumpy, they never seem to acknowledge any social greetings
In reply to ChrisJD:
A Strava top ten! Well done! Just checked through the listings and only one of our club has done the Ranger's - 12mins on a hardtail.
One of those for next year methinks though I've got enough planned now that I've already got conflicts in my diary
A Strava top ten! Well done! Just checked through the listings and only one of our club has done the Ranger's - 12mins on a hardtail.
One of those for next year methinks though I've got enough planned now that I've already got conflicts in my diary
In reply to Bob:
something to keep in mind for the enjoyment and safety of all: http://www.eryri-npa.gov.uk/visiting/Activities/Cycling/voluntary-restricti...
something to keep in mind for the enjoyment and safety of all: http://www.eryri-npa.gov.uk/visiting/Activities/Cycling/voluntary-restricti...
In reply to Bob:
12 mins on a hard-tail is pretty dam impressive given the terrain ( I'm back on full sus again).
If you want some company - let me know when you plan to go do Snowdon (not up for a big group though).
12 mins on a hard-tail is pretty dam impressive given the terrain ( I'm back on full sus again).
If you want some company - let me know when you plan to go do Snowdon (not up for a big group though).
In reply to Bulls Crack:
Yep - well aware of restrictions and courtesy to others (I did it on a Wednesday morning).
Yep - well aware of restrictions and courtesy to others (I did it on a Wednesday morning).
In reply to robert-hutton:
That would be the roadies on mountain bikes
I say a cheery hello to everyone!
> Strange that, I always view the off road bike user as a bit grumpy, they never seem to acknowledge any social greetings
That would be the roadies on mountain bikes
I say a cheery hello to everyone!
In reply to Bulls Crack:
I know about the voluntary restrictions - I was living in the area when they were brought in. It wouldn't be enjoyable to ride on Snowdon with masses of walkers about so it's no big deal to comply with the agreement.
I know about the voluntary restrictions - I was living in the area when they were brought in. It wouldn't be enjoyable to ride on Snowdon with masses of walkers about so it's no big deal to comply with the agreement.
1
In reply to ChrisJD:
I'm currently HT only, not sure if I'll get a FS for a while. I'll have to improve my skills (and bottle) to do the Ranger's on an HT.
I'm currently HT only, not sure if I'll get a FS for a while. I'll have to improve my skills (and bottle) to do the Ranger's on an HT.
In reply to Bulls Crack:
And Snowdon bikers have been praised by the NP:
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/snowdon-access-well-done-everyone
And Snowdon bikers have been praised by the NP:
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/snowdon-access-well-done-everyone
In reply to Bulls Crack:
Do you think the MTB community is missing out here - perhaps through being rather fragmented? If we are "voluntarily" denied access to trails we are legitimately allowed to ride on (for good reasons that we accept) would it not be fair for a quid pro quo of "voluntary" access to some footpaths that we would normally not be permitted to ride. I can think of several that are quiet, reasonably robust and that would fill gaps in loops. The extra permissions could be timed to match the voluntary denials.
If this were a viable approach who would negotiate it?
Do you think the MTB community is missing out here - perhaps through being rather fragmented? If we are "voluntarily" denied access to trails we are legitimately allowed to ride on (for good reasons that we accept) would it not be fair for a quid pro quo of "voluntary" access to some footpaths that we would normally not be permitted to ride. I can think of several that are quiet, reasonably robust and that would fill gaps in loops. The extra permissions could be timed to match the voluntary denials.
If this were a viable approach who would negotiate it?
In reply to harold walmsley:
This is already happening in the Peak with permissive BW allowed by landowner - e.g Longshaw and Curbar/Froggat.
I think the Snowdon arrangement essentially stopped the NP seeking to downgrade the BW to FP. I think most are happy with the voluntary agreement.
> would it not be fair for a quid pro quo of "voluntary" access to some footpaths that we would normally not be permitted to ride.
This is already happening in the Peak with permissive BW allowed by landowner - e.g Longshaw and Curbar/Froggat.
I think the Snowdon arrangement essentially stopped the NP seeking to downgrade the BW to FP. I think most are happy with the voluntary agreement.
In reply to harold walmsley:
I think you are, the CTC don't represent MTB riders (their policy to trails would be unacceptable to many riders) and this organisation http://imba.org.uk/ seems dormant (?) if the lack of updates and bad links on the website are anything to go by.
I can see you getting squeeze by ramblers and horse riders so I would get organised. I have to say the individual posts on 'trail sensitisation' can seem pretty arrogant so a diplomatic effort by someone talented in PR would be good. Off the top of my head I'd think MTB is a decent little economic driver so you should be heard.
> Do you think the MTB community is missing out here - perhaps through being rather fragmented?
I think you are, the CTC don't represent MTB riders (their policy to trails would be unacceptable to many riders) and this organisation http://imba.org.uk/ seems dormant (?) if the lack of updates and bad links on the website are anything to go by.
I can see you getting squeeze by ramblers and horse riders so I would get organised. I have to say the individual posts on 'trail sensitisation' can seem pretty arrogant so a diplomatic effort by someone talented in PR would be good. Off the top of my head I'd think MTB is a decent little economic driver so you should be heard.
Post edited at 13:03
In reply to harold walmsley:
I think there may have been some quid pro quo at the time the restrictions were introduced - I have a vague feeling that they allowed MTBs into the forests north of Betws-y-Coed, although you may have had to pay for a permit. That was before the Marin was built, so you were paying for the privilege of riding the fireroads !
At the time there was a realization that most mountain bikers don't want to go up mountains - undulating trails where you can ride both uphill and downhill are more popular. Allowing trail centres was seen as a means of luring MTBs away from the popular walking areas. I have to say that if I was taking my bike to snowdownia I'd be far more likely to do Brenin or Penmachno than Snowdon - it's a hell of a slog.
I think there may have been some quid pro quo at the time the restrictions were introduced - I have a vague feeling that they allowed MTBs into the forests north of Betws-y-Coed, although you may have had to pay for a permit. That was before the Marin was built, so you were paying for the privilege of riding the fireroads !
At the time there was a realization that most mountain bikers don't want to go up mountains - undulating trails where you can ride both uphill and downhill are more popular. Allowing trail centres was seen as a means of luring MTBs away from the popular walking areas. I have to say that if I was taking my bike to snowdownia I'd be far more likely to do Brenin or Penmachno than Snowdon - it's a hell of a slog.
In reply to Mike Stretford:
Its already happening - lots of (growing) advocacy in the Peak
http://www.peakdistrictmtb.org/
http://www.ridesheffield.org.uk/
With very active FB presence.
Got DCC to sit up and listen to walker, horse & bike trail users over their inappropriate approach to trail 'maintenance'.
Its already happening - lots of (growing) advocacy in the Peak
http://www.peakdistrictmtb.org/
http://www.ridesheffield.org.uk/
With very active FB presence.
Got DCC to sit up and listen to walker, horse & bike trail users over their inappropriate approach to trail 'maintenance'.
In reply to Mike Stretford:
Maybe it's partly because mountain bikers aren't club orientated in the same way that roadies are. I'm sure there are clubs (I'm looking at joining one that is a member of CTC) but I don't know how many others there are. Usually it's just a handful of mates heading out or meeting up for a ride. I suspect that without a club structure with its inherent organisation no-one is going to step forward and say "I'll represent on this committee", the attitude of most MTB riders would be "Who the f*** are you?". A lot of mountain bikers are young and don't really have an interest in sitting in meetings that discuss the minutiae of points of access or law. In a way it's the opposite problem the BMC had with club and individual members.
You are right in that mountain biking is a decent economic driver, though it is mainly trail centre based, look at the success of the Seven Stanes project in southern Scotland - place like Peebles (in particular) have really benefited from the local centres. I saw a report http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/scotland/article/20140227-Mounatin-biking-... that MTB is worth around £50m to the Scottish economy - not to be sniffed at.
Maybe it's partly because mountain bikers aren't club orientated in the same way that roadies are. I'm sure there are clubs (I'm looking at joining one that is a member of CTC) but I don't know how many others there are. Usually it's just a handful of mates heading out or meeting up for a ride. I suspect that without a club structure with its inherent organisation no-one is going to step forward and say "I'll represent on this committee", the attitude of most MTB riders would be "Who the f*** are you?". A lot of mountain bikers are young and don't really have an interest in sitting in meetings that discuss the minutiae of points of access or law. In a way it's the opposite problem the BMC had with club and individual members.
You are right in that mountain biking is a decent economic driver, though it is mainly trail centre based, look at the success of the Seven Stanes project in southern Scotland - place like Peebles (in particular) have really benefited from the local centres. I saw a report http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/scotland/article/20140227-Mounatin-biking-... that MTB is worth around £50m to the Scottish economy - not to be sniffed at.
In reply to ChrisJD:
Sounds to me like you are just very good!
> (In reply to DubyaJamesDubya)
>
> [...]
>
>
> Lol, your mates need to try harder ;-0
>
> I got down from the railway line to the first gate in under 9 minutes, Amongst the best bit of riding of the whole year (some of the stuff on Corsica this summer was pretty wild and that was on a hardtail!)
>
> [...]
>
>
> Lol, your mates need to try harder ;-0
>
> I got down from the railway line to the first gate in under 9 minutes, Amongst the best bit of riding of the whole year (some of the stuff on Corsica this summer was pretty wild and that was on a hardtail!)
Sounds to me like you are just very good!
In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:
lol, the trips to A&E tell a different story!
> Sounds to me like you are just very good!
lol, the trips to A&E tell a different story!
In reply to ChrisJD:
I now feel better about the amount of bike pushing I did on the way down.
It reminds me that one of the guys I was with fell off and hurt his knee (got down ok but couldn't ride the following day) and he was the guy on the DH bike.
> (In reply to DubyaJamesDubya)
>
> [...]
>
> lol, the trips to A&E tell a different story!
>
> [...]
>
> lol, the trips to A&E tell a different story!
I now feel better about the amount of bike pushing I did on the way down.
It reminds me that one of the guys I was with fell off and hurt his knee (got down ok but couldn't ride the following day) and he was the guy on the DH bike.
In reply to ChrisJD:
Bikes are banned in some (all?) National Parks in Finland, except on roads or designated trails that tend to be smooth and boring. It's interesting because everywhere else bikes are covered by the standard Scandinavian Everyman's right.
> Scotland and mainland Europe) don't have this foot/cycle separation and the sky hasn't fallen in!
Bikes are banned in some (all?) National Parks in Finland, except on roads or designated trails that tend to be smooth and boring. It's interesting because everywhere else bikes are covered by the standard Scandinavian Everyman's right.
In reply to TobyA:
Yes you are right - MTBs are also not allowed in some French NPs. But France is HUGE and there are so many mountainous/high areas that are not in NP (and much of their NP are really high mountains, so essentially unrideable anyway {except for a few I'm sure]) - unlike England & Wales where so much of our upland areas are in NP.
Yes you are right - MTBs are also not allowed in some French NPs. But France is HUGE and there are so many mountainous/high areas that are not in NP (and much of their NP are really high mountains, so essentially unrideable anyway {except for a few I'm sure]) - unlike England & Wales where so much of our upland areas are in NP.
In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:
No A&E trips from the Rangers though...
(no DH bike for me - though I have a do-it-all AM bike)
No A&E trips from the Rangers though...
(no DH bike for me - though I have a do-it-all AM bike)
Post edited at 08:58
In reply to Trangia:
I found this an excellent read: Understanding and resolving land use conflicts Volume 1: Mountain Biking in Scotland
http://www.hutton.ac.uk/sites/default/files/files/publications/Mountain-bik...
I found this an excellent read: Understanding and resolving land use conflicts Volume 1: Mountain Biking in Scotland
http://www.hutton.ac.uk/sites/default/files/files/publications/Mountain-bik...
In reply to Chris the Tall:
>I have a vague feeling that they allowed MTBs into the forests north of Betws-y-Coed, although you may have had to pay for a permit. That was before the Marin was built, so you were paying for the privilege of riding the fireroads !>
In that case I think the bikers got a poor bargain. Reduced access to several of the most iconic bridleways in the region with paid access to a few boring fireroads in return does not sound like a fair deal. I think there could be scope for re-negotiation!
>I have a vague feeling that they allowed MTBs into the forests north of Betws-y-Coed, although you may have had to pay for a permit. That was before the Marin was built, so you were paying for the privilege of riding the fireroads !>
In that case I think the bikers got a poor bargain. Reduced access to several of the most iconic bridleways in the region with paid access to a few boring fireroads in return does not sound like a fair deal. I think there could be scope for re-negotiation!
In reply to harold walmsley:
We rode in the ByC forest for years before the Marin was built - never heard of having to pay for it.
We rode in the ByC forest for years before the Marin was built - never heard of having to pay for it.
In reply to ChrisJD:
Note I quoted Chris the Tall. I did the same myself once with my son who was only primary school age at the time. This was before I really started mountain biking. We used a map and hire bikes from Beics Betws to follow forest roads in the general Gwydir area.
Note I quoted Chris the Tall. I did the same myself once with my son who was only primary school age at the time. This was before I really started mountain biking. We used a map and hire bikes from Beics Betws to follow forest roads in the general Gwydir area.
In reply to harold walmsley:
An example of a more reasonable-looking quid pro quo very close to the banned bridleways in the Snowdon area might be to permit a descent to Nant Gwynant from the col between Snowdon and Yr Aran. The other side of the col is already bridleway and this would complete a loop from Beddgelert via Rhyd Ddu. I must admit to not having covered this ground even on foot so am not completely sure of the suitability but there are multiple tracks and inclines visible from a distance and it would seem to be no great loss to permit one line to be legitimately used by bikes. It shows the sort of thing that could be looked at?
An example of a more reasonable-looking quid pro quo very close to the banned bridleways in the Snowdon area might be to permit a descent to Nant Gwynant from the col between Snowdon and Yr Aran. The other side of the col is already bridleway and this would complete a loop from Beddgelert via Rhyd Ddu. I must admit to not having covered this ground even on foot so am not completely sure of the suitability but there are multiple tracks and inclines visible from a distance and it would seem to be no great loss to permit one line to be legitimately used by bikes. It shows the sort of thing that could be looked at?
In reply to MattDTC:
Which isn't always such a bad thing. I say this because if an MTBer was riding in a shared use area where they were allowed to, but when the ground was very wet and erodible, I think that'd be worse than somebody riding a footpath and not damaging it (so that one would notice) or unnerving any walkers.
When it comes to erosion and walkers and bike riders etc getting along, rules can only do so much, and some 'common sense' is handy as well.
> Like I said, MB'ers can often be found on footpaths because they know they can get away with it.
Which isn't always such a bad thing. I say this because if an MTBer was riding in a shared use area where they were allowed to, but when the ground was very wet and erodible, I think that'd be worse than somebody riding a footpath and not damaging it (so that one would notice) or unnerving any walkers.
When it comes to erosion and walkers and bike riders etc getting along, rules can only do so much, and some 'common sense' is handy as well.
Post edited at 22:54
In reply to Timmd:
I can't remember if I mentioned it on this thread or another but local to me there's a section of the Pennine Way that I occasionally ride even though it's a footpath, it leads on to a bridleway. The PW section is sustainable for riding on as it's gritstone flags and stone based, the bridleway isn't - at this time of year it will be a bog.
To Harold W:
I think that block of land is now owned by the National Trust - it was part of the sale about 15 years ago. There's quite a few old track in the Gwynant valley and the Llanberis pass that could be reinstated and used to create a loop that was almost entirely off-road around Snowdon for bikers. It took the national park and Gwynedd council twenty years to get a footpath put in between Gwastadnant and Nant Peris for safety reasons so I wouldn't hold your breath.
I can't remember if I mentioned it on this thread or another but local to me there's a section of the Pennine Way that I occasionally ride even though it's a footpath, it leads on to a bridleway. The PW section is sustainable for riding on as it's gritstone flags and stone based, the bridleway isn't - at this time of year it will be a bog.
To Harold W:
I think that block of land is now owned by the National Trust - it was part of the sale about 15 years ago. There's quite a few old track in the Gwynant valley and the Llanberis pass that could be reinstated and used to create a loop that was almost entirely off-road around Snowdon for bikers. It took the national park and Gwynedd council twenty years to get a footpath put in between Gwastadnant and Nant Peris for safety reasons so I wouldn't hold your breath.
In reply to ChrisJD:
It was around 1990 and my memory is a bit hazy, but I have this vague memory of requiring a permit in the same way as you did for canal towpaths. I assume it was quickly scrapped
> We rode in the ByC forest for years before the Marin was built - never heard of having to pay for it.
It was around 1990 and my memory is a bit hazy, but I have this vague memory of requiring a permit in the same way as you did for canal towpaths. I assume it was quickly scrapped
In reply to Trangia:
I also did the ODP this year, I was more concerned with inconsiderate bikers passing at speed with no warning. Even with no bell (!) some distance away you can cough or clap hands to alert folks, I do this on runs. Occasionally some people shout left i,e side they will pass,
On the Alternative PW I was nearly knocked down, only jumped to the side after being alerted to a bikers presence by the sound of braking, and yes I do bike.
I also did the ODP this year, I was more concerned with inconsiderate bikers passing at speed with no warning. Even with no bell (!) some distance away you can cough or clap hands to alert folks, I do this on runs. Occasionally some people shout left i,e side they will pass,
On the Alternative PW I was nearly knocked down, only jumped to the side after being alerted to a bikers presence by the sound of braking, and yes I do bike.
In reply to harold walmsley:
In theory, that would form an amazing double Snowdon loop!
- Up the first bit of Rangers
- Down Telegraph Valley
- Up Beris path to summit
- Down Rhyd Ddu
- Down to Nant Gwynant
- Around and up to Pen-Y-Pass
- Up Miners (BW)
- Carry up Zig Zags (FP - but carrying on FP often considered OK...)
- Summit
- Down Rangers
(I'm sure its been done...)
In theory, that would form an amazing double Snowdon loop!
- Up the first bit of Rangers
- Down Telegraph Valley
- Up Beris path to summit
- Down Rhyd Ddu
- Down to Nant Gwynant
- Around and up to Pen-Y-Pass
- Up Miners (BW)
- Carry up Zig Zags (FP - but carrying on FP often considered OK...)
- Summit
- Down Rangers
(I'm sure its been done...)
1
In reply to harold walmsley:
I think the MTB community is not well represented at a national level compared to horse riders lets say. Maybe they - quite rightly possibly - can't be arsed.
RE footpaths - there is a lot of tacit support for making allowing riding on appropriate footpaths but the voluntary ban on the bridelways is really just a pragmatic extension of the terms of the Countryside Act 1968 ie bikes giving way to pedestrians/horse riders
I think the MTB community is not well represented at a national level compared to horse riders lets say. Maybe they - quite rightly possibly - can't be arsed.
RE footpaths - there is a lot of tacit support for making allowing riding on appropriate footpaths but the voluntary ban on the bridelways is really just a pragmatic extension of the terms of the Countryside Act 1968 ie bikes giving way to pedestrians/horse riders
In reply to Diddy:
Don't get me started on that one. Being slightly hard of hearing I am frequently suprised and given a fright by inconsiderate cyclists overtaking too close from behind. Bells are the best form of warning and I always appreciate those who have taken the trouble to fix one on their bikes, and move over to one side of the path. A shouted warning is better than nothing but that too can make you jump and a bell is preferable.
I have a bell on my bike and start by giving it a few pings when I am well back, if that doesn't work I increase the frequency. If that still doesn't work I slow right up and slowly pass them with care, giving a cheerful greeting.
> I also did the ODP this year, I was more concerned with inconsiderate bikers passing at speed with no warning. Even with no bell (!) some distance away you can cough or clap hands to alert folks, I do this on runs. Occasionally some people shout left i,e side they will pass,
> On the Alternative PW I was nearly knocked down, only jumped to the side after being alerted to a bikers presence by the sound of braking, and yes I do bike.
Don't get me started on that one. Being slightly hard of hearing I am frequently suprised and given a fright by inconsiderate cyclists overtaking too close from behind. Bells are the best form of warning and I always appreciate those who have taken the trouble to fix one on their bikes, and move over to one side of the path. A shouted warning is better than nothing but that too can make you jump and a bell is preferable.
I have a bell on my bike and start by giving it a few pings when I am well back, if that doesn't work I increase the frequency. If that still doesn't work I slow right up and slowly pass them with care, giving a cheerful greeting.
Post edited at 07:28
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...