- This topic has 32 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 13 years ago by tf.
-
Are dedicated mtb trails a prelude to mtb bans in the non-dedicated places?
-
jhwFree Member
Anyone else’s first response to hearing about new trail centres in places that were great to ride anyway, “don’t trust Greeks bearing gifts”?
stumpyjonFull MemberNo
I think you may be suffering from paranoia. Despite many of the conspiracy theories those in charge are far to dis-organised to do something like that.
Personally I reckon access rights are likely to increase in time rather than decrease, it may take a good few decades though.
Get behind the STW access campaign.
JunkyardFree Memberno because they cannot really enforce the ban – that they dont want to introduce anyway.
Tresspasa is only a civil matter anywayFresh Goods Friday 696: The Middling Edition
Latest Singletrack VideosFresh Goods Friday 696: The Middlin...crazy-legsFull MemberI brought this up in another thread ages ago about access, basically trying to have our cake and eat it. We want access to everywhere and we’d also like some dedicated play parks/trail centres please.
Hmmm.
I’m not against the idea in any way, don’t get me wrong I’d love Scottish style access laws but I can just see the predictable response from the more militant members of the rambling fraternity.
wwaswasFull MemberI think most ramblers would accept mtbers everywhere as a payoff for open access – it’s the land owners who would fight tooth and nail to block open access.
MrSalmonFree MemberI don’t think so because generally speaking nobody cares about it. Clearly a lot of Ramblers get their red socks in a twist about MTBs but it’s a long way from there to any sort of legislation.
jhwFree MemberIt seems to be going that way a bit in some parts of the French Alps though, a bit?
BadlyWiredDogFull MemberI’ve never quite understood this thing about walkers, or specifically, The Ramblers, having some master plan to eradicate mountain bikes. Sure, you meet the odd grumpy old git on the trail, but I’ve never seen anything to suggest that The Ramblers, as an institution, has any particular agenda on mountain bikes at all. They’re far more concerned about maintaining and expanding access rights than in somehow banning mountain bikes.
I thought maybe I’d missed something, so I went over to the ramblers web site at http://www.ramblers.org.uk and did a search on cycling looking for evidence of anti-biking policies. Couldn’t find anything, mostly just lots of stuff about maintaining the footpath network, lobbying government to promote walking and expanding rights of way. There are a few references to protecting green lanes etc from motorised leisure vehicles, but nothing that I could find complaining about damage or offence caused by bikes.
Then I went googling for the same, ironically mostly I found forum threads with mountain bikers complaining about ramblers rather than the other way round.
Anyway, I don’t quite understand where it comes from. But here’s a thought, even if the Ramblers Association came out and officially opposed mountain bike access, here’s the thing, the Ramblers don’t actually control access law, they’re just a vociferous walkers’ representative body. Sure, they have some influence, but the even if they were determined to remove mountain bikes from the outdoors – which as far as I can see they’re not – that wouldn’t actually mean it would or could happen.
Why are mountain bikers so convinced that walkers want us all banned?
TrimixFree MemberMountain biking is now a mainstream leisure lifestyle passtime, embraced by the middle classes. Its not the sport we see it as – razzing down techy decents and blitzing sweet singletrack.
Sure, most of these people will just ride their bikes once or twice a year in the summer, but they are the majority of mountain bikers. These are also the people who are members of the National Trust, local councils, farmers, walkers, everyday people.
Only the minority of die hard mountain bikers (STW people) will see a conspiricy.
Its like snow sports – once it was rad and cool and extream, now everyone goes and the rad and extream are pushed to the edge.
Almost all walkers I meet are fine / or indifferent to mountain bikers. Even when Im riding cheeky.
gusamcFree Memberbwd,
they have MUCH more access to money and ‘influential people’ than any other outdoor access group, like it or not that will make a difference when it comes to law.
‘vociferous walkers’ representative body’, agrred but it’s universally recognized and probably better than having umpteen like mountain bikers (sorry)
antigeeFull Memberalready happened – bridleways & boats are the only access allowed by one notable large landowner – The National Trust
as to the rambler points above – i think we have much more in common than many seem to think – start shouting “conservation” and then you’ve got a can of worms
BadlyWiredDogFull MemberWhat are you sorry about? Just show me the bit where the Ramblers as an organisation are against mountain bikes and in favour of banning us?
Go on. Show me. Show me some evidence instead of just inventing things. Go on. Show me the Rambler policy documents and news releases where they talk about reducing mountain bike access. Show me the bit where they complain about mountain bikers riding on footpaths even.
I’m not saying that there aren’t individual walkers out there who dislike bikes, but that’s a long way from saying that walkers’ organisations – BMC as well – oppose mountain biking. And further still from it becoming law.
But don’t let reality get in the way of a bit of virtual martyrdom…
BadlyWiredDogFull Memberalready happened – bridleways & boats are the only access allowed by one notable large landowner – The National Trust
How does that differ from other places then?
MrSparkleFull MemberI’m with BWD. Maybe people have different experiences in other areas but I can’t remember getting any hassle from anyone whilst riding, even on ‘cheeky’ stuff. I have heard lots of stuff from mtb’ers about getting grief but I’m not sure how much is apocryphal. Like most things in life don’t go out of your way to be a (insert appropriate swear word here) and treat people/things with respect and things go a lot smoother.
antigeeFull MemberHow does that differ from other places then?
agree not a lot but for example
FE/FC seem significantly more enlightenedbuzz-lightyearFree Member“basically trying to have our cake and eat it”
Hmm. What kind of cake?
jhwFree MemberIn fact, I don’t think I’ve had any hassle either.
We’re basically the same as walkers and need to play up the common interests etc. a bit more because as an interest group they’re much more influential/organised and will always be so
joemarshallFree MemberI’m guessing this is referring to the surrey hills national trust thing? Which given that they’ve previously just been anti bike on all their land (like Leith Hill), is surely not what is happening there?
I’m guessing NT have seen how many people go to Holmbury etc, and are willing to let a bit more riding go on than previously in the hope that they will get a bit of that cash spent in their campsite etc.
Not that their efforts to stop people riding stuff ever seemed to have any effect anyway.
jamesFree MemberI’ve had hassle from peak park rangers, one of which was adament I was on a footpath (stanage plantation – the one with the much photographed slabbed ‘hairpin’ up top), that was until I pointed out on his map (and the key) its a bridleway
Though none have wanted names/addresses or mentioned the £500? finecinnamon_girlFull MemberAnyone else’s first response to hearing about new trail centres in places that were great to ride anyway, “don’t trust Greeks bearing gifts”?
I know where you’re coming from, sometimes I’m guilty of cynicism. However, with this Big Society idea, local people will be encouraged to become involved and express their opinions. Therefore it follows that local people (read local mtb’ers/walkers/dog walkers) may resist with NIMBY’ism.
Nevertheless I don’t actually want complete freedom to ride footpaths. There has to be some segregation so as to avoid conflict.
I just wish we had a voice to represent us. 🙁
pennineFree MemberA lot of what we take for granted in our access rights today only came about because of the RA and other like minded groups in the 20s & 30s. As a high pressure access rights group they were part of the committee which instigated national parks after the war i.e. National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act.
Like BWD says, you’ll be hard pushed to find any reference to banning mtbs. The RA were, and still are, mainly involved in maintaining and increasing access rights for all.
jhwFree MemberI agree with everything said and the Leith Hill proposal sounds like progress!
But, though welcome, hearing of it still made (makes) my buttocks clench a bit, if in principle only. It suggests that we are perceived as just liking to ride big berms as fast as possible and don’t really care about where it happens.
buzz-lightyearFree Member“There has to be some segregation so as to avoid conflict”
Sorry CG I don’t follow that at all. Segregation-thinking is what causes most of our problem IMO. So walkers hate the cyclists have the drivers hate the trail bikers hate horse riders hate the 4x4ers hate the hunters hate the kitists hate the travellers hate the landowners hate the farmers hate hate hate. We are divided and conquered.
Rural land users need to be united in liberty and responsibility not divided by historical and arbitrary lines drawn up by clerks. Conflict is avoided by unity, conventions, education, good manners and fear of 3rd party injury lawyers.
Sorry 🙂
aracerFree MemberDon’t be silly. Nobody’s going to ban us so long as we don’t try to circumvent the swear filter.
ashFull MemberNevertheless I don’t actually want complete freedom to ride footpaths.
What? WHAT?
There has to be some segregation so as to avoid conflict.
There doesn’t, there just needs to be mutual respect between various different types of trail user.
james-oFree Memberi don’t think that apart from in my darkest most cynical moments ) it can add to the ‘get off this trail’ attitude from some but you’ll always meet idiots in public from time to time.
we’re already banned from footpaths and it doesn’t stop me riding them with due care etc. bans are one thing, enforcing them another.
respect for others and the spaces you ride in, whether bridleway or not, trumps sticking to the rules but riding like an idiot.
waymarked MTB trails in areas with plenty of good riding can work, there’s a nice one i know in the cotswolds that works well alongside popular walking paths, but there’s also plenty of other stuff to ride in quieter times.
jam-boFull Memberwhen Gawton, was built in the Tamar valley, I believe the funding body hoped it would mean they could stop the riding at Devon Consuls/Chipshop quarry.
It didnt, it hasn’t and now we have two great riding spots within a couple of miles of each other. Result…
MrAgreeableFull MemberFrom personal experience purpose-built trails can sometimes be the “carrot” element in the “carrot and stick” approach to land management – i.e. steer people away from a problem area by providing them with an alternative. I’ve got no problem with this as long as the alternative is a reasonable approximation of what’s being surrendered.
It’s also worth remembering that all users are frequently managed in far more subtle ways than signs or fences. For example, you might be nominally free to wander through an area on foot, but they may build a nice surfaced path and deliberately leave debris over the rest of the site.
iaincFull MemberAre dedicated mtb trails a prelude to mtb bans in the non-dedicated places? not applicable in Scotland 😆
there you go !
tfFree Member> However, with this Big Society idea …
Hehe, I thought the Big Society meant ‘clear your own snow, grit your own roads’, but I can see how it can be easily extended to MTBing. Next time somebody asks me what I am doing in the woods, I will proudly say ‘Big Society!’. 😀
The topic ‘Are dedicated mtb trails a prelude to mtb bans in the non-dedicated places?’ is closed to new replies.