I don’t have a problem with the whole issue of cheeky trail riding, so long as a bit of common sense is applied – along the lines of http://www.cheekytrails.co.uk/ethics.htm

However, filming y’self & others doing some cheeky, then posting the footage online – oh dear 🙄 Personally, I don’t think it’s a particularly bright idea.

What do other people think on this one?

Hmmm. Tough one. Strava raises a similar issue!

I have concerns about strava for the same reason and do think that videos with any noticable identifiable bits are a very bad idea.

The first rule of cheeky trails is you do not talk about cheeky trails.

And the second rule of cheeky trails?

Agree with op on this. Posting vids up of cheeky use is quite daft and not in the sport’s best interest.

The wider problem of whether you should ride a cheeky one is a serious can of worms.

Posting vids up of cheeky use is quite daft and not in the sport’s best interest.

and just to give the MTB-haters extra ammo, one of the guys in the vid laughs about the huge skid he’s just left on the way down to one of the footpath gates – whilst there’s NT staff and walkers around!

Talk about screwing it up for other bikers 👿

I quite like searching youtube for places to ride. You have to use quite specific search terms and most videos I’ve found have 10-20 views.

On the other hand if you’re pissing about doing skids and posting links on forums that’s a bit stupid.

I’ve done videos on cheeky/secret trails, the point being that they’re cheeky/secret so the only folks that will recognise them are already using the cheeky/secret trails.

GPS links are different though… Very bad progress, that, for a lot of riding spots that survive by secrecy or quietness.

Strava and other GPS logs are not the problem, people are the problem, as the great philosophers Goldie Lookin Chain said, Guns don’t kill people Rappers do.

I have logged cheeky trail and posted to closed private groups.

Travel light leave no trace and don’t do it on a F’in weekend also if your in a group take a second to look at the map and know where the group leader is taking you (ignorance is no excuse for being in the wrong place on a Saturday afternoon)

#Edit

All my strava cheeky trails are marked Private

Is this the same as/as bad as posting a video of you riding an unopened and unfinished (as in the top surfacing) trail centre trail? I recall a fairly prolific and well known rider/racer/poster of videos doing just that a few years ago. 😕

You know, I’m starting to think that the people most strongly infuriated by mountain bikers riding footpaths are, in the main, mountain bikers. We have a special site laying down the law about what people should and shouldn’t do. We have a culture of secrecy.

But I ask you this. If we never ride footpaths in open sight, how can we ever expect walkers to accept mountain bikes (well behaved ones) as normal on footpaths? One thing seems likely, we’re unlikely to get de facto access to footpaths south of the border any time soon, it’s not on anyone’s agenda. So if we want to ride on paths, we need to make it accepted as a day-to-day happening.

If we skulk in a cupboard, only ever ride footpaths after 11pm on a Tuesday when there’s a ‘Z’ in the month and have to have pink Barbie tassles on our bikes when we do, how will walkers ever get used to the idea?

Catch 22.

I quite fancy having pink tassles on my bike. And spokey dokeys.

The walkers, well the rambers association, won’t accept bikes on footpaths, not without a serious fight. In fact they would like sole unrestricted access to the countryside. They are currently quite focused on motorised vehicle use on legitimate ‘greenlanes’, but once they have finished there their attentions will soon move to getting bikes and horses banned from bridleways. You mark my words. The ‘antis’ have trawled youtube and forums for evidence of irresponsible use (or even responsible use that can be misrepresented) in their efforts against motorised access, so expect the same approach to be used against any cycle access campain. Unfortunately there are all too many people who continue to post such ammunition on public sites/forums so they aren’t short of material.

The walkers, well the rambers association, won’t accept bikes on footpaths, not without a serious fight. In fact they would like sole unrestricted access to the countryside. They are currently quite focused on motorised vehicle use on legitimate ‘greenlanes’, but once they have finished there their attentions will soon move to getting bikes and horses banned from bridleways. You mark my words. The ‘antis’ have trawled youtube and forums for evidence of irresponsible use (or even responsible use that can be misrepresented) in their efforts against motorised access, so expect the same approach to be used against any cycle access campain. Unfortunately there are all too many people who continue to post such ammunition on public sites/forums so they aren’t short of material.

And your hard evidence for this is? Sorry, not trying to be confrontational, but if The Ramblers genuinely do have an formal anti-bike agenda, I think we should be aware of it. I’m sure horseriders would want to know if they advocate banning riders on brideways too?

I am a walker and don’t mind bikes on footpaths as long as I do not get mown down. Did the ramblers in Scotland complain that everybody got access?

Totally agree with BadlyWiredDog.

I actaully think mountain bikers are perpetuating these stupid access rules.

With very few exceptions we should just go out and ride what you want when you want. So long as you aren’t harming or intimidating other users of the countryside.

If other users have a problem with it well that there look out. They will soon enough get used to it and accept bikes on trails.

Make restricted access the exception rather than the norm.

Since when is hard evidence required to express an opinion on here 🙂

I’m going off some of the opinions and comments expressed during during campaigns and discussions surrounding motorised access, and the general feeling is they want it all to themselves. We’re not talking about the majority of walkers here, just the active vocal minority, you know the retired schol teacher types with nothing better to do with their time than moan about people enjoying themselves. So I’m not saying the RA have any formal agenda against bikes more reading between the lines of the attitude and opinions of the vocal activists, no one listens to the silent majority.

It seems all of my hobies have access issues, greenlaning, canoe/kayaking, mtbing. Maybe i should take up something less controversial like knitting.

I’m with BWD on this.
“Cheeky Trails” rules don’t sit well with me.

I draw a clear distinction between respecting secrecy on the one hand and creeping around in the dead of night just to avoid being seen somewhere by walkers etc.

In practice, for me this means I won’t post a gps track or video that would betray the location of something shown in confidence.
BUT
I have no issue with being on those cheeky trails on a sunny Summer’s afternoon with a bunch of friends.
This is all about working on the expectations of the other trail users. I consider myself to always be polite and give a cheery “how do”. I give way where appropriate and generally try not to upset the people that I meet along the way. In response most will rarely take issue. It wouldn’t even occur to the majority of younger folk that there should be an issue with our presence.
Only the older red-socks seem hell-bent on their sole ownership of the hills. Their time is passing and they’ll be in residential homes within the next decade.

Go ride where you like, when you like. Just be nice to everyone you meet along the way.

Go ride where you like, when you like. Just be nice to everyone you meet along the way.

Amen to that. Lets be honest, the only place you get grief is ,say, when you’re in the busier parts of lakes. And even then its only from the idiots who walk from one outdoor shop to the other to buy a new Berghaus fleece, and never actually get more than half a mile from the car anyway

Where I live, if I didn’t ride cheeky I wouldn’t be able to string a descent route together. So the whole question is academic. Am I going to stop riding? Am I ****!

To highlight the lunacy of it all, and also raise the question of videoing it – THIS is my favourite footpath

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O56xs0OXi5U[/video]

Awesome isn’t it? We rode it, grinning away, last week. Then finished off with the steps and switchbacks down through the gardens, which is admittedly a strictly after dark affair. Common sense innit?

I kind of see the whole ‘cheeky trails’ label as being a bit like referring to road riding as ‘the darkside’. It’s instantly loaded. I’d prefer to just call it riding footpaths, which is mostly what it is. As soon as you say ‘cheeky trails’, there’s a subtle inference that we shouldn’t be there, which we should.

As far as the RA’s policy goes, well, if you’re going to attribute views to an organisation, I’d say you should have some hard evidence before you do it. That’s slightly different to just expressing an opinion no?

I kind of see the whole ‘cheeky trails’ label as being a bit like referring to road riding as ‘the darkside’. It’s instantly loaded.

Cheeky Trails is a historic term, we’ve moved on from when the term was coined 10+ years ago. The whole point of the name was to place the riding of footpaths in context; not a bad thing, not illegal but just a bit of cheeky access rule bending.

I’d prefer to just call it riding footpaths, which is mostly what it is. As soon as you say ‘cheeky trails’, there’s a subtle inference that we shouldn’t be there, which we should.

Let’s just drop the reference to footpaths completely and call it riding ;o)

As I’ve said before I reckon the best way forward is to just ride stuff all the time and let change come naturally as bikes on paths becomes the norm.

I’d agree with the OP in part, drawing attention to a sensitive location in order to be internet famous is not clever.

But: there’s absolutely no point in posting about it on a discussion forum in the hope that your one, quickly-vanishing rant will change behaviour. There will always be people who disregard the rules, whether written or unwritten.

The best thing we can do for access is actually engage with the people who set the policies. My recent experience at a JLAF was far more positive than expected, with even the most fusty attendees starting from a pro-access position. A proposed gating order, for example, was met with really fierce opposition.

Binners,
The really daft thing is that on that Winter Hill descent (footpath), bikes probably outnumber walkers by a factor of 10.
We rode that down & then up last Wednesday night evening. Loads of bikes out. Don’t remember seeing any walkers!

Dave,

As I’ve said before I reckon the best way forward is to just ride stuff all the time and let change come naturally as bikes on paths becomes the norm.

Yep, that’s my point.

+1 BWD

Strava only becomes an issue when some gonk doesn’t tick the ‘Private’ box on an uploaded plot, I don’t belive anyone should be turning Cheeky trails into KOM runs really…
Most of my strava activity is private as it’s from my door and I don’t really want to provide an inventory of my bikes and a map to their location if I can help it.

Filming is another case of individuals applying proportionate judgement, and it all depends on how the video is used once you make it; Popped up on youtube with date time and location (And some bad Numetal soundtrack) is a No No IMO as you are just providing free ‘evidence’ to any beligerent NIMBYs to wave their arms and try to justify leave logs across trails. keeping a vid for distribution amongst mates is fine IMO, the trouble with the information age is so many people are keen to splurge their exploits across various open access media without thinking how these things might be used by others with different agendas.

I suppose the opposing view needs to be considered though in that that if MTBing generally becomes a more ‘covert’ activity does this actually help feed the ‘anti-MTB’ case also? where a ‘loud and proud’ attitude of:

“We’re riding here, we are not doing anyone or anything any harm and are willing to stand up and defend our activities if challenged (And adjust where appropriate)”

might serve better?

I’m not saying either approach is the correct one, but it’s a reasonable point for debate…

I will say this Strava and youtube are probably becoming an increasingly useful tool for anyone looking to gauge the popularity of MTBing generally (or any other outdoor activity), and also the approximate proportion/frequency that takes place on Cheeky trails, for anyone regardless of their agenda. So those in the ‘pro’ camp have access to the same data if it helps them make a case/refute the ‘anti-MTB’ arguments…

Most of my strava activity is private as it’s from my door and I don’t really want to provide an inventory of my bikes and a map to their location if I can help it.

you can set exclusion zones around various areas including your favoured cheeky spots and your home rather than just make the whole lot private?

I’ve tried regsitering on that cheeky trails forum several times but never get access- is there some secret hand-shake I don’t know about or something?

you can set exclusion zones around various areas including your favoured cheeky spots and your home rather than just make the whole lot private?

Can you? Brilliant

TBH I’d not spotted that function on the website yet (uploading .gpx files rather than logging via the app).

I shall explore the option further tonight tonight, although isn’t there still the danger you manage to lead people to the right sort of reigion/area to find your bikes or cheeky trails, would a log full of rather obvious holes not still give others a bit of a steer?

People who want to moan about MTBers will moan whatever you do. I’ve been moaned at riding down bridleways in blacka by walkers walking up- they just saw someone on a bike and decided they didn’t like it, it was dangerous, spoiling their countryside etc etc.
A recent post on ride sheffield from some head honcho of the local ramblers illustrated really well what the official “party line” is: if you are really good and behave yourselves we might talk about letting you have some tracks to ride on:
read it and weep

read it and weep

I read it, its not unreasonable if obvioulsy very walker-centric piece.

I still think the best approach is to ride where you like and just be nice while you are doing it.

I just call it ‘going for a ride’ too. Some cheeky places are perfectly fine places to ride, with a bit of common sense. Some legal places to ride are bit dumb.

The common sense bit is key – there’s a fair few dicks on mountain bikes, that don’t always acknowledge other’s right to a peaceful bit of countryside. Just as there are dicks that walk, run, ride horses, MXs, etc. Be part of the solution.

What is the definition of cheeky trail, riding a foot path ? Then there is a cheeky trail as in building berms and digging jumps, including on footpaths. I ride the occasional official footpath (sometimes walk it if it’s a weekend) but a lot of the tracks I ride are not official footpaths so to me fair game. Where I have worries is extensive building/digging (even away from paths but in busy places) and people riding inconsiderately on bridleways “because they are entitled to”

I read it, its not unreasonable if obvioulsy very walker-centric piece.

I still think the best approach is to ride where you like and just be nice while you are doing it.

+1

I don’t think that was exactly a condemnation of cycling more a call for a sensible and proportionate approch with the goal of proving wider access should be allowed For All not just ramblers/cyclist/horsists, we have a lot in common with other countryside users…

But I’m not sure how they’d view great big Shore constructions of 6′ drops etc, hence these sort of things need to be kept largely out of the way and clear of common routes, not massively difficult…

just set several smaller overlapping exclusion zones so you end up with a cluster of them rather than a big one based on a single spot.

I have obviously been confused with terminology. I thought a footpath was a footpath and I am happy to ride them politely and smile etc and everyone (nearly everyone) is happy.
Cheeky trails I thought were tracks through the woods with no rights of way and just follow dear tracks and out of site have jumps/berms etc
Ride/build these as well but feel a bit guilty and don’t advertise or talk about them.

I dont understand, we are allowed to ride anywhere as long as you dont cause damage or a golf course*. * may be a few other exceptions.

ride anywhere as long as you dont cause damage or a golf course

‘causing a golf course’ is in the Bible as the 11th deadly sin, isn’t it?

If not, it should be.

Then finished off with the steps and switchbacks down through the gardens, which is admittedly a strictly after dark affair

unless you are a bogtrotter or one of the muppets cheeky trail building without permission

Cheeky Trails is a historic term, we’ve moved on from when the term was coined 10+ years ago. The whole point of the name was to place the riding of footpaths in context; not a bad thing, not illegal but just a bit of cheeky access rule bending.

That’s partly what I’m getting at. It seems out of time to me. You do know that people outside the Cheeky Trails ‘elite’ refer to it as ‘Cliquey Trails’.

I’m not really fussed either way, I just go riding, but if we are serious about riding where we want, maybe we need to address the world as it is and not as it was 10+ years ago?