The moderators have kindly let me most my research survey up for completion.

I am currently looking at how bikers feel they are represented and how they would like to be represented. It is for a final year dissertation in Environmental Science, however a number of groups have approached asking for the report once it is done.

With issues such as Rushup Edge, it is an indication of communication issues and the importance of having someone stand up and speak for us.

I am hoping the findings will be used to improve representation.

https://qtrial2014.az1.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_3DJfDFbayArH7MN
null

If you could fill it in that would be great. If there are any points you would like to raise that is not covered by the questionnaire please post below. Any comments that are in this thread will be used in the research and by completing the survey or commenting it is giving your consent to the use of it in my research.

Boring compulsory bit over. Now lets hear your honest thoughts!

Cheers

Krystle

Filled it in… one of the questions is “The advocacy group has made a significant in the area I ride” Should this be significant improvement?

in general they are a good thing but they need to realise that if they are going to claim to represent ALL mountain bikers then ALL covers much more than the typical STW crowd. there are shed loads of leisure mountain bikers who want more than disused / converted railway tracks but don’t want to be challenged at every corner

Done although confused by this mention of advocacy groups.

IME even the phrase ‘mountain bikers’ vs ‘off road cyclists’ causes problems, as of course you get the eternal arguments at LAF about whether ‘off road’ includes suburban tarmac commuting paths, towpaths and sustrans type paths.

I think the podge is right that it’s important to include all grades of rider when discussing trails/infrastructure, personally I think that probably has to begin with anything that is not tarmac.

If you could fill it in that would be great.

Would love to but i got stuck on question 2.

If there are any points you would like to raise that is not covered by the questionnaire please post below.

See above. Maybe include Northern Ireland?

If there are any points you would like to raise that is not covered by the questionnaire please post below.
See above. Maybe include Northern Ireland?

And Scotland.
Here’s an example.
The recently finished Harestanes wind farm(Ae Forest)had a bit about “consulting local cycle clubs” regarding trail and road closures plus the new bits if trail to bypass the construction areas. I mailed the person named on the press release asking him which clubs he “consulted? There are none. He never replied 🙄

Cheers guys! Duly noted!

🙂

I think with an increasing number of people now riding cyclocross (out the people I know anyway), and as the podge has said, off-road cyclists covers people riding hybrids off-road to people on full dh rigs. It is certainly hard to please all.

How do you guys think campaign groups should address this issue?

One size certainly does not fit all unless a trail is completely flattened. Then people may not like it, but it is still accessible.

One person’s dream piece of technical trail may be another persons nightmare.

How do you guys think campaign groups should address this issue?

No need to? Mountain bikers can be quite effective in getting an MTB-specific trail put in but many others want to simply be able to ride a larger area linking various tracks and have little to no interest in ‘trail centre’ type developments. Those riders in the UK tend to ride footpaths and ridden-in unmarked tracks regularly and just get on with it. Micro-management of ROWs seems to be how they handle it in some areas (some FC honeypot spots with Go-Apes and a cafe etc, for ex) yet local riders just carry on using the trails that work for them, regardless. Hopefully with due care and respect. That ‘unauthorized use’ can cause issues but in reality there are few, it’s a campaign we’ll never win though so cheeky-trailing continues.

Campaigning for Scottish-style access would be good, or just carry on as we are.

How do you guys think campaign groups should address this issue?

One size certainly does not fit all unless a trail is completely flattened. Then people may not like it, but it is still accessible.
One person’s dream piece of technical trail may be another persons nightmare

I think the old adage that ‘variety is the spice of life’ applies, and the best way to achieve variety is to focus on securing quantity, we simply need more trails than are currently officially open to use, and through that will come quality and variety.

I’ve certainly stood in the way of councils diverting the line of a bridleway (from a rocky stepped path to a nice smooth footpath not far away) by pointing out the fact that it was a welcome challenge and popular for that very reason, but if they wanted to open up both as bridleways I would back it all the way.

I think one way would be to press the council towards ascertaining suitability for future use rather than the current over reliance on evidence of historic use within the ROW process, at the moment the council can create a ROW where it would be of benefit to a significant number of locals or the wider community, this could be easily utilised, for example if someone made an application for a footpath on historic evidence, the council shoud look at that path and say ‘forget the historic use, what would it be suitable as in the future’ and on that basis the council could cast aside the history and push through a Bridleway creation order.

Jameson +1.

I am that cheeky trail rider. I could burn my spare hours on trail advocacy for my entire life for nothing, or I can continue business as usual. It’s a no brainer.

I could burn my spare hours on trail advocacy for my entire life for nothing, or I can continue business as usual. It’s a no brainer.

I get what you mean. Some aspects of it work at a glacial pace and, even when taking into account other stakeholders issues, still seem to be based on arcane, uninformed, illogical viewpoints. These are mind bendingly frustrating for everyone and put off the vast majority of potential volunteers.

On the other hand I’ve been involved with an organisation that’s almost single handedly responsible for building a small but fiendishly technical set of trails for all, built one of, if not the first, pump track in the UK, helps build and maintain regularly at three different Forestry Commission managed sites (well, ones always been a bit wobbely), re-built a pretty poor tech’ area into something more durable and interesting / worthwhile, helped various people start thinking about trails and how to do it, including other volunteer / advocacy organisations, liaised with councils, agreed RoW settlements etc etc etc.

But moreover I’ve had quite a bit of fun and some great craic with people either previously or still involved in it.

I don’t mention this to toot our own horn but sometimes people doing stuff can make a difference. I / we are the living breathing proof of it. There are lots of other groups that have had plenty of success too and I will admit there’s also been plenty of disasters. On the whole though I think things are better, at least in part, thanks to these people / groups taking the time and making the effort.

It’s not for everyone but there is a place for it. By using a bit of selection about what you can achieve and what is “worth” pursuing things can be achieved. Not everything, and not always to the loudests’ / most vocals’ satisfaction, but good stuff that is worth having and makes the riding world a little bigger / better / more diverse / richer.

As for the survey, I think it has some flaws in the questions and the underlying assumptions / premise comes through a little too strongly. Whatever, no harm in a bit of banter about it. Still think there’s much more scope for people to get involved with stuff that can make a positive difference.

You can’t expect all riders to do so and people can’t be guilted into it but so long as there are groups / means for people who want to do so to get involved that’s got to be good.

Campaigning for Scottish-style access would be good, or just carry on as we are.

I’m not sure if what you mean is the same thing but I think in the UK we’d be better (because IMO it might be more achievable) to campaign for access based on suitability for use or access to all the PRoW network except where specifically prohibited.

I don’t think either are a realistic proposition without a national body cohesive enough to campaign on that front. If there’s one thing mtbers are not, its cohesive on a national scale.

Personally, I make continuous decisions about trail sustainability in my area, and our tiny group does bits to push through new trail and improve sustainability of both existing and new stuff. Its all small scale and based on spreading traffic and drainage improvements though, which isn’t really enough to be scalable to something more formal.

I’ve filled in the questionnaire, but there were several questions that didn’t make sense.

In my case, I am not a member of a group (some questions assumed that I was) but have been previously, which is what my answers refer to.

I don’t think either are a realistic proposition without a national body cohesive enough to campaign on that front. If there’s one thing mtbers are not, its cohesive on a national scale.

Personally, I make continuous decisions about trail sustainability in my area, and our tiny group does bits to push through new trail and improve sustainability of both existing and new stuff. Its all small scale and based on spreading traffic and drainage improvements though, which isn’t really enough to be scalable to something more formal.

Perfectly fair points, agree with most of them. I read your earlier post as “just ride, don’t bother with anything else” (to paraphrase crudely). In doing so I think I’ve misinterpreted it in context of the other points in the thread.

😎

As for national representation, I think it’s a nice aspiration but hard and unlikely to happen anytime soon. We’ve a heap more to learn just doing “local” stuff first.

As for national representation, I think it’s a nice aspiration but hard and unlikely to happen anytime soon. We’ve a heap more to learn just doing “local” stuff first.

I think it’s what the CTC were trying to do until recently with projects like Aston Hill and Tidworth. Unfortunately due to cutbacks I believe the programme has been canned.

I’m not sure if what you mean is the same thing but I think in the UK we’d be better (because IMO it might be more achievable) to campaign for access based on suitability for use or access to all the PRoW network except where specifically prohibited.

That would also be good, worth supporting. Still wouldn’t change how I ride locally but in some areas (that I suspect would be a lot more resistant to it..) it could open up a lot more riding.

projects like Aston Hill and Tidworth.

I think that’s more like the OPs study, local centres rather than general riding access. Centres are good but they are more specialist, not sure what % of riders use them but I suspect it’s a small, keen minority with more to gain so the support initiative is there.

Perfectly fair points, agree with most of them. I read your earlier post as “just ride, don’t bother with anything else” (to paraphrase crudely). In doing so I think I’ve misinterpreted it in context of the other points in the thread.

Or maybe not. I’m happy to admit that previously on here I’ve said that anything less than Scottish style right to roam isn’t worth fighting for*.

* which is not strictly true, because access rights are clearly won incrementally. Despite this, I’m not prepared to lose my life fighting a cause that won’t be achieved in my lifetime, especially when willfully ignoring current access legislation is so successful at achieving nigh on the same thing right now.

* which is not strictly true, because access rights are clearly won incrementally. Despite this, I’m not prepared to lose my life fighting a cause that won’t be achieved in my lifetime, especially when willfully ignoring current access legislation is so successful at achieving nigh on the same thing right now.

I know the feeling and TBH that’s why I’m not very interested in getting involved with a big “campaign” like that. My point was that there’s lots of other stuff worth doing (which you seem to do by reference to your local group). Like I said, I think I went off on a bit of a tangent about general trail stuff when others were, fairly enough, talking about advocacy.

Bah, eloquence eludes me at the mo.

Happy trails 😎

I think in a roundabout way I’m also saying that I’m reluctant to get involved with a big campaign, because it will never ever, under existing uk access law, be good enough for trail hackers.

Campaigns are great for fixed sites, but not for the wider issues of access and land ownership.

Who are the ‘dig days’ organised? (Pick all that apply)

……..Local advocacy group
……..Local bike shop
……..Cycling groups
……..Independent (self organised)
……..N/A
Who are the dig days organised? I’m assuming you’re asking ‘By Who’ not ‘for who’? 🙂
Anyway, doesn’t seem a very big choice? what about Forestry Commission, local council, club (ie scouts, youth club) and what about an ‘Other’ option

Despite this, I’m not prepared to lose my life fighting a cause that won’t be achieved in my lifetime, especially when willfully ignoring current access legislation is so successful at achieving nigh on the same thing right now.

I think the dual track approach works here, civil disobedience against the system whilst seeking to do what I can to change it for the long term,

What I have seen over the past twenty years is an increasing tolerance whereby MTBers have become relatively normalised as a valid countryside user group in many areas, particuarly national parks, rather than viewed as something between a threat and the spawn of satan as we were back then – it’s easy to forget how far we’ve come.

Don’t think we need anyone to stand up and speak for us…we can speak for ourselves. What is needed is members to stop sitting back and not getting involved. If they did, it probably wouldn’t be as bad as it is in some places.

Members?

Anybody that thinks we don’t need a ‘voice’ just consider that if we had a strong one, we may have achieved Scottish style access in Wales this year! Instead we weren’t even heard.

Can just see a minister busting a gut fighting landowners etc for a group that isn’t interested in changing things…

Instead we weren’t even heard.

Was there a campaign or much promotion of the cause?

I think that’s more like the OPs study, local centres rather than general riding access. Centres are good but they are more specialist, not sure what % of riders use them but I suspect it’s a small, keen minority with more to gain so the support initiative is there.

They also provide focal points for organisations such as the CTC, as opposed to sweeping national changes which would be massively more difficult to get considered, let alone implemented.

Was there a campaign or much promotion of the cause?

+1. What sort of awareness campaign was there?