Oi! you lot, looks like I've received a flaming in my abscence No worries we're all entitled to our opinions
Aye, and having been up there Sunday and yesterday, in my opinion it's ripe for a road bike at the moment 
Doesn't mean I'm gonna be on anything other than my Top Fuel as it would be bloody miserable, could definitely be done though!
Its a bit odd describing things as Ian and the CTC "taking over" - they aren't invading top trail spots and imposing their own law! They are called in as experienced consultants - if anyone thinks they know better they are free to present themselves in the same way and compete for the work.
glenp - really, well you may not know the history regarding Tilgate, they are taking over a public access area, and charging for it's use, and we don't seem to have a choice. Details will be thrashed out at the meeting.
I wish we had a choice as to whether or not to have their £68 per year, per cyclist charge, or £6 per day permit to ride, proposals for monitoring the trails Tilgate. They will not provide any trails, just inspection and CTC membership.
A conversation with Ian, revealed that they are looking to roll this out across other privately owned ride areas too. You never know, it could be coming to an area near you, some point.
There are other areas going through this, that were free to ride up until now, Rogate is one that I recall, and there was a thread on here regarding that recently.
I appreciate all that, woodsman - what I meant was you were making it sound like it was all CTC's doing! Who owns the land?
some people just need to fu(k off and stop messing around with these play area's. don't get me wrong some places can benefit greatly but others, no! It's down to nothing more than insurance and 'elf and safety.. The sooner people take responibility for their own actions the better, that we we can be happy to build trails in the middle of nowhere and not worry about the consequences. I mean, who the f''k uses some random hill in the woods except a biker to build a jump or two on.. PARENTS you can all do one as well - ooh my little darling hurt himself on your land - im suing - give it a rest, if your little darling hurts himself it's his/her own bl00dy fault. However landowners - knowingly stick obstacles up on frequently used trails and you should be carted off to court. rant rant rant... too much poncy fannying around lately..
No worries glen, glad you can see where I'm coming from a bit more now. The land at Tilgate is a mix of Crawley and Mid Sussex councils with the bulk middle part Forestry Commission.
I had a candid hour long telephone conversation with Ian, and this is a scheme in it's infancy that the CTC are keen to roll out across other areas, Forestry at the start, then privately owned areas where trail building is prolific, and deamed a problem/risk by the land owners. Basically, the fees are compulsory CTC membership with added top up fees, to make the £6 per day permit, or £68 annual. It's to relieve the land owners, public or private, of any responsibility and the third part risks, as the CTC will take the resposibility, and waymark/grade and inspect the trails. They will not provide any actual trails/materials or labour other than inspection. I can see the benefits for and against, although I probably don't need to state my view.
Will there actually be someone there to actually levy this though? Only doggers and grans at Tilgate from what I have seen from the odd lunchtime walk around there (i work in Colgate)
Apparently - 'peer pressure' to quote Mr Warby. Someone will probably take on the warden role from the club that is to be formed, to coincide with the CTC take over. I think that is to be formalised at the meeting I mentioned.
I worry that sooner or later it will be MTB's in sanctioned places only with significant fees to attend. Can't have us hareing round the countryside scaring the redsocks and running over puppies eh!
so will we eventually need a seperate permit for each area we ride in, or will one permit be for everything?
HH, I don't have that sort of info.
Can't have us hareing round the countryside scaring the redsocks and running over puppies eh!Of course we could always NOT hare around scaring people and then this situation wouldn't arise in the first place (not picking on you jools, you just put it so well).
The Hurtwood is special in so much as it is all privately owned. They could opt for a scheme like that - as far as I know they aren't considering it at the moment, but when the best known cooperative project on the Hurtwood gets vandalised by people who think that someone else's land should be hacked about to suit only them then a situation is being created where it may become more likely.
Even with permit schemes I'm pretty sure you would still have a right to use the existing bridleways.
It's a worry though Glen. Used to be that when there were fewer people out on MTB's there seemed to be less complaints (obviously) now though as the sport grows it is in danger of becoming a victim of it's own success.
The Hurtwood is a great spot for sure but increasingly we have to view it as more like a trail centre than not with all the associated baggage that carries.
Unsanctioned building is annoying and thoughtless but I maintain it's the lack of courtesy and thoughtfulness especially to local people with kids and dogs etc that causes the real harm to the image of MTB.
can you really stop people who are intent on riding trails from doing so - private land or not..???? no serious. Hurtwood are great, they came to realise that biking was here to stay so joined in and said lets make it work together. Other "land owners (council FC)" are knobs who want money for the privilage. Hurtwood know there's miles upon miles of unsanctioned stuff, but it remains realitvely hidden so is no massive concern. Tilgate, Rogate, even the place that's not really there in Kent would never normally be an issue accept for HSE. It's almost like trying to control fell running!
can you really stop people who are intent on riding trails from doing so
You can confiscate their bikes, that's quite a good disincentive! Is it not attitude like that that causes the problems in the first place?
Its all very well thinking that you would never sue the land owner, but if you do find yourself with serious life-long injury and a family to support your attitude would soon shift from "sueing" to "claiming on their insurance", because you'd have very little choice.
Totally agree about the behavior thing jools. Attitude is everything and regular folk assume a certain attitude exists when they see (for example) body armour and brash clothes and super massive dh bike. I have enough trouble persuading people that I have known all my life that I ride in a discreet and polite manner, and I've lived here 45 years, am grey-haired and dress pretty discreetly. If I have trouble convincing them what chance does anyone with a more "different" image have?
You can confiscate their bikes, that's quite a good disincentive! Is it not attitude like that that causes the problems in the first place?
Pretty certain you can't! The police can, but that'd be about it. The land owner or their agent could ask you to leave and you'd be obliged to do so by the quickest route, but other than that they wouldn't be able to 'do' anything.
Certainly if they took your bike that'd be robbery, which is a pretty serious crime (not the same as theft). If you put up a struggle (as would be your right as they'd be acting illegally) then you can add assault to that as well.
Obviously the above would in all likelyhood never happen, but lets not spread false rumours eh?
It's almost like trying to control fell running!
Fell running doesn't usually envolve digging into the ground and forming structures on/out of it.
Putting an alternative view on it. How would you feel about someone turning up and building jumps or drops in your garden? Or deciding to park on your drive because you're close to where they want to be?
Seems to be a lot of disrespect for people's property being expressed.
Inherently being a mountain biker in the surrey hills we are all disrespecting property everytime we ride (unless you only use Bridleways?) 90% of trails are illegal - its just a fact of life.
90% of trails are illegal.
Why? 90% of trails might not be bridleways but they're not illegal. They're private property, yes, but if the owner is happy to allow you to ride on them within certain requirements - like don't dig fresh ones, don't build jumps, don't scare the horses - then what law is being broken?
Or to illustrate by hyperbole. If my friend brings his bike around my house and rides it in my garden, with my permission, following my rules (don't run over the cat, stay off the vegetable patch, don't swear at the wife) what law is he breaking?
But is the owner happy - probably not it most cases...ie stuff on redlands, winterfold, leith, ranmore etc goes through stages of being blocked off
and riding footpaths is illegal - much of the best stuff is footpath, hence we ride footpaths alot.
I'm talking more specifically about areas under the Hurtwood Control here, so Winterfold / Redlands is possibly more as you say. I don't specifically know who the landowners of these areas are, or what their attitude is.
But within the Hurtwood, as long as you're following the rules / code of conduct then the landowner is to a greater or lesser extent OK with it. Any conflict is being caused by bad behaviour, by building new trails, or (as here) 'modifying' the existing trail network in a way that the landowner is not OK with
To the other point: Riding footpaths is not illegal.
A footpath is an right of way for foot passengers over land. Whether the landowner likes it or not. If he is also happy for bikes to be ridden over those footpaths, it's his land, what law's being broken?
What, of course its illegal - otherwise why have a definition of a footpath! just like cycling on the pavement
OK - maybe a civil wrong.
"from Wikipedia
Right of ways and open access across land typically only extend to walking. So you don't have a right to cycle or ride a horse on a public footpath. However, it is not a criminal offence to do so, unless there is a traffic order or bylaw in place specifically. A land owner may pursue you for damages under trespass Law or obtain a court order Injunction banning you from riding on their land, if you persisted.
It is a civil wrong to ride a bicycle or a horse on a public footpath, and action could be taken by the landowner for trespass or nuisance by the user.[1]"
All I am trying to point out is much of what we do is basically selfish.
I wasn't only talking about the land.
theotherjon sums it up nicely. If you don't like the trails at Hurtwood then you have two options.
1. Don't ride there.
2. Join the group, put the work in and push for different trails. Although, accept that the owners maynot wish for your type of trails to be built on their land. In which case revert to 1.
Freeride Nick what the others are trying to say is the landowner in the hurtwood is happy for you to ride on his land this includes in this area footpaths so its not a civil offense in the hurtwood.
Footpaths are a ROW and are not the same as pavements.
And as a complete aside, I can do a very decent loop with absolutely no footpaths in it anyway, I wouldn't say that 'much of the best stuff' is footpaths. Perhaps more so on the North Downs, but not the Surrey Hills.
I know all this and think the Hurtwood do a good job - and have worked on trail days on BKB.
I was being more general of the whole area. You don't just ride on the Hurtwood do you.
PS the best ending to BKB is a footpath!
This topic has been closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
