This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Does anyone know if your aloud to mtb up Scafell ? was looking on google but carnt seem to get a yes or no.
Cheers
Cheers
In reply to pauldr:
I think technically the answer may be no, I'm pretty sure one of the MBUK writers lugged a downhill bike up there a few years ago for the descent but I'm not 100% on that.
I think technically the answer may be no, I'm pretty sure one of the MBUK writers lugged a downhill bike up there a few years ago for the descent but I'm not 100% on that.
In reply to pauldr:
No, not even quietly.
There are bridleways to the summits of Helvellyn and Skiddaw and one or two other summits but that's it. Check it out on a map (streetmap.co.uk if you don't have hard copies of the Lakes maps)
ALC
No, not even quietly.
There are bridleways to the summits of Helvellyn and Skiddaw and one or two other summits but that's it. Check it out on a map (streetmap.co.uk if you don't have hard copies of the Lakes maps)
ALC
In reply to pauldr:
There is no bridleway.
I would have thought no matter which way you went it would be a pretty grisly push/carry for much of the way up.
There is no bridleway.
I would have thought no matter which way you went it would be a pretty grisly push/carry for much of the way up.
In reply to pauldr:
You have no legal right, it is a civil offence of trespass, an agent of the landowner could ask you to leave or dismount and walk or whatever, any militant redsocks can go and fcuck themselves.
You have no legal right, it is a civil offence of trespass, an agent of the landowner could ask you to leave or dismount and walk or whatever, any militant redsocks can go and fcuck themselves.
In reply to Conquistador of the usless:
Or, should local no cycling bylaws be in place, you could be fined quite heavily. It's never as simple as civil offence/trespass.
But why not buy a guidebook and ride the legal trails?
Or, should local no cycling bylaws be in place, you could be fined quite heavily. It's never as simple as civil offence/trespass.
But why not buy a guidebook and ride the legal trails?
In reply to pauldr:
No, you can't cycle up, you'll have to leave it on the bike rack until you get to the top.
No, you can't cycle up, you'll have to leave it on the bike rack until you get to the top.
In reply to pauldr: It would be a horrible slog up and a bike bending decent! Apart from that, its not legal. A much better ride is to park in Glenridding, ride up the Greenside valley, up the zig zags, lower man, Helvellyn, then the mega decent down Grizedale valley, a double black by anyones standards. If that aint enough for ya, ride the lake shore to Howtown then over Boredale and descend to side farm. An uber day out and all on Bridleways.
In reply to pauldr:
I don't really understand why you would want to, its probably quicker to walk.
I don't really understand why you would want to, its probably quicker to walk.
In reply to Tom Hutton:
That is hypothetical, there has never been a case of somebody being fined for riding down a mountain in the UK.
If you ride responsibly, avoid causing damage and are courteous to other users, much like the right to roam in Scotland, i see no logical reason why a mtb should be any different to walking. The law is an ass, landowners will use any excuse to exclude outdoor enthusiasts from land.
I for one will ride where i see fit, using a common sense approach and not the outdated biased designations imposed by some crusty parish council. The ramblers gained access through mass trespass, mtbers should take notice of this, besides if you wish to ride bridelways go ahead, some of the best trails out there are cheeky ones.
That is hypothetical, there has never been a case of somebody being fined for riding down a mountain in the UK.
If you ride responsibly, avoid causing damage and are courteous to other users, much like the right to roam in Scotland, i see no logical reason why a mtb should be any different to walking. The law is an ass, landowners will use any excuse to exclude outdoor enthusiasts from land.
I for one will ride where i see fit, using a common sense approach and not the outdated biased designations imposed by some crusty parish council. The ramblers gained access through mass trespass, mtbers should take notice of this, besides if you wish to ride bridelways go ahead, some of the best trails out there are cheeky ones.
In reply to pauldr: I cycled up Snowdon couple of years ago along the main tourist path that runs near railway. 90% ridable. Lots of fun - do it!
In reply to pauldr: 10 points for whoever can help me on this... there used to be a great (and somewhat pointless (in a good way)) website that was simple a pro-'riding on footpaths and trails' kinda thing. some nice pictures and that. Cant for the life of me remember the name.
In reply to thommi: Cheeky Trails ????
In reply to Conquistador of the usless:
What a lovely caring sharing sentiment. No wonder walkers are up in arms against cyclists when you show that sort of attitude.
> any militant redsocks can go and fcuck themselves.
What a lovely caring sharing sentiment. No wonder walkers are up in arms against cyclists when you show that sort of attitude.
In reply to JWB: 10 points!!! thats the kidder sir, thankyou.
In reply to Conquistador of the usless:
Winner! I can't wait to get my trial bike up and down!!!
> (In reply to Tom Hutton)
> The law is an ass, landowners will use any excuse to exclude outdoor enthusiasts from land.
> I for one will ride where i see fit, using a common sense approach and not the outdated biased designations imposed by some crusty parish council.
Winner! I can't wait to get my trial bike up and down!!!
In reply to John Ww:
Do you work for the daily Mail, nicely taken out of context....we are talking bycycles here, green credentials not tearing through the countryside causing damage with associated noise polution, pretty anti social don't you think.
PS. to the op from what i gather Scafell is not condusive to good riding, to many boulders, try Skiddaw/ Helvelyn for the win.
Do you work for the daily Mail, nicely taken out of context....we are talking bycycles here, green credentials not tearing through the countryside causing damage with associated noise polution, pretty anti social don't you think.
PS. to the op from what i gather Scafell is not condusive to good riding, to many boulders, try Skiddaw/ Helvelyn for the win.
In reply to pauldr:
The short answer is no, as there are no bridleways or other RoW that reach the summit.
I did it back in the mid 80s but that was before I was aware of the legal restrictions. I did it as well as doing Scafell (presume you actually mean Scafell Pike), Helvellyn and Skiddaw as part of a ride over the Lakes 3000ft summits. It took 2 of us 14 hours, which was a fair bit faster than my time for walking it. We rode a lot of it, but it was still a major epic involving some extended carrying. The highlights included carrying up Lord's Rake, down climbing Broad Stand (we used a long sling to lower the bikes between ledges), descending Helvellyn in the dark with Petzl Zooms, and the descent down Skiddaw which we timed at 13 minuets. All this was done pre-suspension!
I was recently back amongst the Scafells checking and photographing routes and did a complete circuit of the range, up Rossett Gill, Styhead, down to Wasdale via the Gable bridleway, over the Burn Moor Tarn bridleway to Eskdale up the Easkdale bridleway to Hardknott Pass, over Wrynose Pass, and then back to Langdale via Dale End and Elterwater. This I would suggest might pacify your Scafell urges? Be warned though, there are some serious portages and very technical riding particularly over pitched sections of the bridleways!
> Does anyone know if your aloud to mtb up Scafell ? was looking on google but carnt seem to get a yes or no.
>
> Cheers
>
> Cheers
The short answer is no, as there are no bridleways or other RoW that reach the summit.
I did it back in the mid 80s but that was before I was aware of the legal restrictions. I did it as well as doing Scafell (presume you actually mean Scafell Pike), Helvellyn and Skiddaw as part of a ride over the Lakes 3000ft summits. It took 2 of us 14 hours, which was a fair bit faster than my time for walking it. We rode a lot of it, but it was still a major epic involving some extended carrying. The highlights included carrying up Lord's Rake, down climbing Broad Stand (we used a long sling to lower the bikes between ledges), descending Helvellyn in the dark with Petzl Zooms, and the descent down Skiddaw which we timed at 13 minuets. All this was done pre-suspension!
I was recently back amongst the Scafells checking and photographing routes and did a complete circuit of the range, up Rossett Gill, Styhead, down to Wasdale via the Gable bridleway, over the Burn Moor Tarn bridleway to Eskdale up the Easkdale bridleway to Hardknott Pass, over Wrynose Pass, and then back to Langdale via Dale End and Elterwater. This I would suggest might pacify your Scafell urges? Be warned though, there are some serious portages and very technical riding particularly over pitched sections of the bridleways!
In reply to Dave Ferguson:
he same principle could be applied to climbing as it's certainly quicker to walk to the tops of most UK crags. Mountain biking is a challenge, that comes with great rewards, and pushing the limits of what is possible is done for exactly the same reasons that climbers push the limits.
> (In reply to pauldr)
> I don't really understand why you would want to, its probably quicker to walk.
> I don't really understand why you would want to, its probably quicker to walk.
he same principle could be applied to climbing as it's certainly quicker to walk to the tops of most UK crags. Mountain biking is a challenge, that comes with great rewards, and pushing the limits of what is possible is done for exactly the same reasons that climbers push the limits.
In reply to Removed UserJeremy Ashcroft: Whenever I've done it I spend more time pushing the bike than pushing the limits. But I'm a wuss.
In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com:
Yep, I know what you mean! However sometimes you just need to be bloody minded, some of my best rides have come after carrying epics! I have always worked on the principle that my bike is lighter than a full winter climbing sack, so if I can be bothered heaving gear to a crag in winter for fun, then I can do the same with a bike. Having biked the Ben, Snowdon and Scafell Pike, I found Scafell Pike far and away the most challenging!
Yep, I know what you mean! However sometimes you just need to be bloody minded, some of my best rides have come after carrying epics! I have always worked on the principle that my bike is lighter than a full winter climbing sack, so if I can be bothered heaving gear to a crag in winter for fun, then I can do the same with a bike. Having biked the Ben, Snowdon and Scafell Pike, I found Scafell Pike far and away the most challenging!
In reply to Removed UserJeremy Ashcroft:
That was the plan .. Nevis, Scafell then Snowdon none of that 24 hr messing just thought pooh that would be fun ..
> (In reply to Removed UserDan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com)
> Yep, I know what you mean! However sometimes you just need to be bloody minded, some of my best rides have come after carrying epics! I have always worked on the principle that my bike is lighter than a full winter climbing sack, so if I can be bothered heaving gear to a crag in winter for fun, then I can do the same with a bike. Having biked the Ben, Snowdon and Scafell Pike, I found Scafell Pike far and away the most challenging!
> Yep, I know what you mean! However sometimes you just need to be bloody minded, some of my best rides have come after carrying epics! I have always worked on the principle that my bike is lighter than a full winter climbing sack, so if I can be bothered heaving gear to a crag in winter for fun, then I can do the same with a bike. Having biked the Ben, Snowdon and Scafell Pike, I found Scafell Pike far and away the most challenging!
That was the plan .. Nevis, Scafell then Snowdon none of that 24 hr messing just thought pooh that would be fun ..
In reply to pauldr: iPhone by any chance? There is a great web site for iPhone spelling cock-ups.
You could always swap Helvellyn for Scafell Pike, it has to be one of the best hills in the UK for mountain biking? Also if you check out youtube there are a series of three clips showing the whole descent of the Ben. Snowdon via the Llanberis path is fairly relaxed, a more interesting route is to go up the Rhyd Ddu Path (bridleway) and down the Snowdon Ranger Path (bridleway), though in season you will have to do them after 5pm because of the voluntary restriction.
You could always swap Helvellyn for Scafell Pike, it has to be one of the best hills in the UK for mountain biking? Also if you check out youtube there are a series of three clips showing the whole descent of the Ben. Snowdon via the Llanberis path is fairly relaxed, a more interesting route is to go up the Rhyd Ddu Path (bridleway) and down the Snowdon Ranger Path (bridleway), though in season you will have to do them after 5pm because of the voluntary restriction.
In reply to pauldr:
Paul, this absolutely might not apply to you. However I suggest...
Ben Nevis, Snowdon and Scafell Pike, as a combined ambition, are not "fun". They are done so that you can tell your non-climbing mates you've walked / biked / carried and ironing board up the only three UK mountains that they are likely to have heard of.
If you are looking for fun you will pick hills on the basis of the quality of the riding and make them close enough to avoiding having to sit in the car for hours in between.
A side effect of doing this will be (a) less use of fossil fuels, (b) less crowding in the hills, and (c) more fun.
Paul, this absolutely might not apply to you. However I suggest...
Ben Nevis, Snowdon and Scafell Pike, as a combined ambition, are not "fun". They are done so that you can tell your non-climbing mates you've walked / biked / carried and ironing board up the only three UK mountains that they are likely to have heard of.
If you are looking for fun you will pick hills on the basis of the quality of the riding and make them close enough to avoiding having to sit in the car for hours in between.
A side effect of doing this will be (a) less use of fossil fuels, (b) less crowding in the hills, and (c) more fun.
In reply to Mark Torrance:
I think that's what Paul meant hence his "not 24 hour nonsense". I would however disagree with the Ben and Snowdon not being fun, having done them both on a number of occasions, if they are within your riding abilities they certainly are fun.
> (In reply to pauldr)
>
> Paul, this absolutely might not apply to you. However I suggest...
>
> Ben Nevis, Snowdon and Scafell Pike, as a combined ambition, are not "fun". They are done so that you can tell your non-climbing mates you've walked / biked / carried and ironing board up the only three UK mountains that they are likely to have heard of.
>
> If you are looking for fun you will pick hills on the basis of the quality of the riding and make them close enough to avoiding having to sit in the car for hours in between.
>
> A side effect of doing this will be (a) less use of fossil fuels, (b) less crowding in the hills, and (c) more fun.
>
> Paul, this absolutely might not apply to you. However I suggest...
>
> Ben Nevis, Snowdon and Scafell Pike, as a combined ambition, are not "fun". They are done so that you can tell your non-climbing mates you've walked / biked / carried and ironing board up the only three UK mountains that they are likely to have heard of.
>
> If you are looking for fun you will pick hills on the basis of the quality of the riding and make them close enough to avoiding having to sit in the car for hours in between.
>
> A side effect of doing this will be (a) less use of fossil fuels, (b) less crowding in the hills, and (c) more fun.
I think that's what Paul meant hence his "not 24 hour nonsense". I would however disagree with the Ben and Snowdon not being fun, having done them both on a number of occasions, if they are within your riding abilities they certainly are fun.
In reply to Removed UserJeremy Ashcroft:
I'm sure you're right. But why those three? How many times have you seen people saying "I want to [insert activity] up the Ben, Scafell Pike, and Cnicht?" for example. Collecting the set is a worthy ambition if you're into Pokemon cards. Less so if you're into hills. And collecting that particular set comes at a cost to a fragile environment.
> I would however disagree with the Ben and Snowdon not being fun, having done them both on a number of occasions, if they are within your riding abilities they certainly are fun.
I'm sure you're right. But why those three? How many times have you seen people saying "I want to [insert activity] up the Ben, Scafell Pike, and Cnicht?" for example. Collecting the set is a worthy ambition if you're into Pokemon cards. Less so if you're into hills. And collecting that particular set comes at a cost to a fragile environment.
In reply to Mark Torrance: The question was asked about those three, and I would agree that just doing those three is a bit anal. However I got the impression that Paul was a regular mountain biker and was just conveying my experience of those hills. Doing them over a life time is I feel more appropriate. However mountain bikers desire to reach summits is no different to walkers or climbers, and is certainly no less obsessive than bagging Munros or ticking climbs in guide books etc, so I am not sure playing the environmental card is any more valid for mountain biking?
In reply to Removed UserJeremy Ashcroft:
Sure. The environment argument goes "If it's just those hills you're interested in then it's an ego trip. Ego trips aren't cool. So do yourself and other's a favour and spread the load a little." I'm sure this doesn't apply to you and Paul. But it may apply to people who google "Scafell" and "MTB" and land on this thread.
However this statement...
...is surely wrong? In the UK, walkers walk to summits because that's the easiest way to reach them. Climbers don't typically go to summits. MTBers go to summits because it's a laugh coming down (or at least that's why I used to do it). If your desire to get to the summit of Scafell Pike was exactly the same as that of a walker, you'd walk.
Of course, that most of us are actually a climber-walker-MTBer-runner hybrid and so motives and desires get mixed. But because our actions have environmental consequences then it's worth unpicking these. If you have a conscience then you are always going to be asking "Is there a way of getting equivalent fun but with less negative impact". In some cases, this might mean swapping biking for, say, running or walking. I can definitely think of places where this would be true. I'm not going to comment on whether going up and down Scafell Pike is one of these.
Sure. The environment argument goes "If it's just those hills you're interested in then it's an ego trip. Ego trips aren't cool. So do yourself and other's a favour and spread the load a little." I'm sure this doesn't apply to you and Paul. But it may apply to people who google "Scafell" and "MTB" and land on this thread.
However this statement...
> mountain bikers desire to reach summits is no different to walkers or climbers,
...is surely wrong? In the UK, walkers walk to summits because that's the easiest way to reach them. Climbers don't typically go to summits. MTBers go to summits because it's a laugh coming down (or at least that's why I used to do it). If your desire to get to the summit of Scafell Pike was exactly the same as that of a walker, you'd walk.
Of course, that most of us are actually a climber-walker-MTBer-runner hybrid and so motives and desires get mixed. But because our actions have environmental consequences then it's worth unpicking these. If you have a conscience then you are always going to be asking "Is there a way of getting equivalent fun but with less negative impact". In some cases, this might mean swapping biking for, say, running or walking. I can definitely think of places where this would be true. I'm not going to comment on whether going up and down Scafell Pike is one of these.
In reply to Mark Torrance: Would agree that some hills/mountains/summits are more appropriate for different disciplines (which for mountain bikers is highly restricted by the limitations of the present RoW network), however just going to the summit by the easiest means over simplifies why people take up different pursuits. If you apply that logic there is no reason to got to a summit at all, we don't have to, we do it because we enjoy it. The easiest thing to do would not be to go to the hills at all and just sit on our arses? I don't go climbing, walking (up mountains), mountain biking or indeed skiing because they are easy, I do it because I enjoy the challenge each one brings. Challenging mountain bike rides might not be your bag, but they are for a fair few people, and they have as much right to purse there experiences within the RoW system as anybody else. Randomly applying the perception of negative impact is unfair.
In reply to Removed UserJeremy Ashcroft:
I agree with all of that. My point, and I think yours, is that as a mountain biker you are choosing to use a hill to get a particular kind of kick.
However, in some contexts choosing to bike over the hill is going to have a greater environmental impact than if you walked. How often this is true is another debate. If the hill is popular, then this is a particular issue because other people will be doing it too. That's why this is worth discussing in the context of Scafell Pike.
If you're going to be responsible about this then you need to decide, on a route-by-route basis, whether biking is going to do more damage than walking. If it's possible that it might then you make a moral decision about whether or not to proceed. I don't think rights come into it.
I agree with all of that. My point, and I think yours, is that as a mountain biker you are choosing to use a hill to get a particular kind of kick.
However, in some contexts choosing to bike over the hill is going to have a greater environmental impact than if you walked. How often this is true is another debate. If the hill is popular, then this is a particular issue because other people will be doing it too. That's why this is worth discussing in the context of Scafell Pike.
If you're going to be responsible about this then you need to decide, on a route-by-route basis, whether biking is going to do more damage than walking. If it's possible that it might then you make a moral decision about whether or not to proceed. I don't think rights come into it.
In reply to Mark Torrance:
Ah, I've just worked out who you are. The "you" in the above was a generic "one", not "Jeremy Ashcroft"!
There must, though, surely be routes that you've ridden (or come to that, walked) where you've thought "that was ace but if I write this up loads of people are going to do it and they'll trash the place"?
Ah, I've just worked out who you are. The "you" in the above was a generic "one", not "Jeremy Ashcroft"!
There must, though, surely be routes that you've ridden (or come to that, walked) where you've thought "that was ace but if I write this up loads of people are going to do it and they'll trash the place"?
In reply to Mark Torrance:
Yes indeed
We all have an impact on the hills and from all the reports I have seen and conversations I have had with experts over the last couple of decades there is little difference between walkers, climbers and mountain bikers. The issue I guess is what is sustainable when balanced against the benefits we derive from pursuing outdoor activities. However I struggle with the argument that mountain bikers are the bad kids on the block and should be castigated for the impact they have. To me it is a weak argument, if you try to restrict mountain biking then the same reasons for restriction can justifiably be used against walkers, climbers, skiers etc. I feel a better approach is to inform and encourage mutual respect amongst all hill users.
As for detailing routes I feel the more the merrier, mainly to open peoples eyes to what's out there and thus spread the load. The types of people that take time to read guidebooks and outdoor magazines are generally not the types that trash routes. The problems seem to arise from the uninformed and people drawn to honey pot routes. But, and it's a big but any negative impact had on the hills is tiny compared with agriculture and industry. I remember being shown an ariel survey of the Lakes and the total visual impact created by upland paths and bridleways was well below 1% of the whole area!
> (In reply to Mark Torrance)
>
> Ah, I've just worked out who you are. The "you" in the above was a generic "one", not "Jeremy Ashcroft"!
>
> There must, though, surely be routes that you've ridden (or come to that, walked) where you've thought "that was ace but if I write this up loads of people are going to do it and they'll trash the place"?
>
> Ah, I've just worked out who you are. The "you" in the above was a generic "one", not "Jeremy Ashcroft"!
>
> There must, though, surely be routes that you've ridden (or come to that, walked) where you've thought "that was ace but if I write this up loads of people are going to do it and they'll trash the place"?
Yes indeed
We all have an impact on the hills and from all the reports I have seen and conversations I have had with experts over the last couple of decades there is little difference between walkers, climbers and mountain bikers. The issue I guess is what is sustainable when balanced against the benefits we derive from pursuing outdoor activities. However I struggle with the argument that mountain bikers are the bad kids on the block and should be castigated for the impact they have. To me it is a weak argument, if you try to restrict mountain biking then the same reasons for restriction can justifiably be used against walkers, climbers, skiers etc. I feel a better approach is to inform and encourage mutual respect amongst all hill users.
As for detailing routes I feel the more the merrier, mainly to open peoples eyes to what's out there and thus spread the load. The types of people that take time to read guidebooks and outdoor magazines are generally not the types that trash routes. The problems seem to arise from the uninformed and people drawn to honey pot routes. But, and it's a big but any negative impact had on the hills is tiny compared with agriculture and industry. I remember being shown an ariel survey of the Lakes and the total visual impact created by upland paths and bridleways was well below 1% of the whole area!
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...