For those who ride the Hurtwood land on the Surrey hills...

Bike Forum

[closed]

For those who ride the Hurtwood land on the Surrey hills...

193 posts & 63 voices | Started 1 year ago by Sonor | Latest reply from deadkenny

Tags:

Pages: 12…6 Next »

Sonor - Member

A couple of new bike trails on Holmbury Hill have been found which have probably been built during and since last summer. They are substantial and represent a good many man-hours of work, involving lots of digging and including innovative use of timber left unharvested from the recent felling.

While the Hurtwood has been happy in recent years to let mountain bikers ride on the land, use the existing trail network and has also let trailbuilders maintain and upgrade trails, this has been done with the express permission of the Hurtwood.

The new trails that have been discovered recently were not permitted and will be put beyond use.

No digging of any kind is permitted....unless the express permission of the Ranger is obtained. Anyone found carrying out unauthorised work on the Hurtwood will be reported to the landowners who have the right to decide whether to pursue legal action.

A further statement from the Hurtwood will be forthcoming.

Posted 1 year ago #
scott_mcavennie2 - Member

By "put beyond use" do you mean dangerously trashed?

Posted 1 year ago #
Sonor - Member

That doesn't warrant an answer really.

Posted 1 year ago #
bigyinn - Member

scott_mcavennie2 - Member

By "put beyond use" do you mean dangerously trashed?

hopefully.....

Posted 1 year ago #
bigsi - Member

Does this include the one to the side of the Ewhurst - Peaslake road that drops down from the road to the pond by the Peaslake car park?

I it does then its a real shame as the first/top part is a cracking alternative to the usual route to the car park

Posted 1 year ago #
scott_mcavennie2 - Member

Why no answer warranted?

I don't build any illegal trails there, but I did see one on Saturday that had been put out of use by lips taken out of drop offs and then large rocks on the landing of the drop off. The same on the run in and landing on a jump further down.

No blockage of the trail at all to put riders off blazing down there.

So, a ridder can be riding down it, and stack it quite badly. Building the trail might be considered irresponsible, but IMO disabling it in a dangerous manner would be even more irresponsible.

bigyinn - I hope that you are never seriously injured on a bike, because when you are lying at the side of a trail with a broken neck, you might think again about your stupid post.

Posted 1 year ago #
ashfanman - Member

They are substantial and represent a good many man-hours of work, involving lots of digging and including innovative use of timber left unharvested from the recent felling.

While the Hurtwood has been happy in recent years to let mountain bikers ride on the land, use the existing trail network and has also let trailbuilders maintain and upgrade trails, this has been done with the express permission of the Hurtwood.

The new trails that have been discovered recently were not permitted and will be put beyond use.

I don't ride there (in fact I've never been to the Surrey Hills), so I'm not coming to this with any agenda, but surely there is a better solution to this?

If the landowners are happy with people to build trails and ride on the land, then surely trashing what you admit is an 'innovative' trail that has taken considerable time to create, just because someone didn't ask the ranger, is an overreaction? Surely what's needed is for the trailbuilder(s) to sit down with the ranger and the landowner to apologise, then firm up a defined set of rules for the land to ensure this sort of thing doesn't happen again?

Perhaps that's already happened and the trailbuilders are taking the p*ss. Just seems a shame to take away what sound like good trails, that's all.

Posted 1 year ago #
scott_mcavennie2 - Member

I think its more of the latter TBH, but worth pointing out that the trail I saw did look like a good one. I found myself wishing at the time that it was a legal one so that I could ride it.

Posted 1 year ago #
bigyinn - Member

scott_mcavennie2 - Member
bigyinn - I hope that you are never seriously injured on a bike, because when you are lying at the side of a trail with a broken neck, you might think again about your stupid post.

Me too!

Seriously though, wind your neck in.
The landowners have been good enough to allow use of THEIR land and people are taking the piss. I very much doubt they'll leave the trails such that a drop off leads straight into a bear pit! They have a responsibility to make the land safe and keep it safe.

Posted 1 year ago #
scott_mcavennie2 - Member

Whoever disabled the trails did. I know this because I cleared the landing area.

Were you there? No. So wind your own neck in.

Christ, its only cheeky trails....

Posted 1 year ago #
bigyinn - Member

No its not cheeky trails. Cheeky trails are riding existing paths, not digging new ones!

Posted 1 year ago #
Sonor - Member

If the landowners are happy with people to build trails and ride on the land, then surely trashing what you admit is an 'innovative' trail that has taken considerable time to create, just because someone didn't ask the ranger, is an overreaction? Surely what's needed is for the trailbuilder(s) to sit down with the ranger and the landowner to apologise, then firm up a defined set of rules for the land to ensure this sort of thing doesn't happen again?

This has already happened, The Hurtwood are happy for riders to use the EXISTING trail network which was defined a couple of years ago. Any trails built since then are not permitted, The trailbuilders who maintain the trails on behalf of the Hurtwood are only allowed to work on existing trails.

The current issue is that the Hurtwood has other users such as walkers, horseriders etc, that use it's land also, what it doesn't want to see is a mountain bike trail through every tract of woodland on every hill, you also have to consider the wildlife that exists in the woods as well.

It makes any kind of trail advocacy difficult, because unathourised trailbuilding is showing the other users of the Hurtwood and the residents of the area that mountain bikers lack responsibility.

Posted 1 year ago #
glenp - Member

When I was a kid you weren't allowed to cycle on the Hurtwood at all. Things are just so good now, and some idiots are determined to ruin it for everyone. It isn't a massive area, and the owners and ranger think that there are enough trails already.

Other land owners at Leith Hill are massively less open minded and prefer to put as much woodland as possible behind barbed wire. Hurtwood are progressive and tolerant - and this is how they get repaid.

Shame.

Posted 1 year ago #
bigyinn - Member

But its only cheeky trails (makes it sound so much cuter than trail construction)

Posted 1 year ago #
Sonor - Member

I don't build any illegal trails there, but I did see one on Saturday that had been put out of use by lips taken out of drop offs and then large rocks on the landing of the drop off. The same on the run in and landing on a jump further down.

The Hurtwood Ranger has not put any of these trails beyond use yet. More than likely someone "modifying" a trail built by someone else.

Posted 1 year ago #
brakes - Member

is this about Barry Knows Best?

Posted 1 year ago #
singletrackmind - Member

No , Barry's is sanctioned by the landowner / Power Ranger

Posted 1 year ago #
scott_mcavennie2 - Member

Sonor - Member
The Hurtwood Ranger has not put any of these trails beyond use yet. More than likely someone "modifying" a trail built by someone else.

Thanks for clearing that up. That was what I was looking to clarify before bigyinn got all excited like a twelve year old looking at his nan's littlewoods catalogue.

Posted 1 year ago #
glenp - Member

Er, no. Once again - there are a set of well known and approved trails which are sanctioned and have volunteer maintenance to varying degrees. BKB is the best known one of those.

Mind you - that sneaky off-shoot of Barrys that has sprung up which pops out in the big berm will get blocked soon I imagine.

Posted 1 year ago #
bigyinn - Member

Scott_m, I refer you to my second post. Oh and throwing childish insults is more like a 12 year olds behaviour than mine.

Posted 1 year ago #
scott_mcavennie2 - Member

I am referring to your first post. The type that a 12 year old would write.

HTH

Posted 1 year ago #
ArthurScargil - Member

Hmmmmmnnnnnn... they don't want you to build. It interferes with their desire to negotiate with a group of people currently seeking to obtain sole trail building rights across Hurtwood that will result in the scratched in stuff morphing into exactly what any of us can find at trail centres across the nation. Money ruins everything in the end. I know numerous mountain bikers - mostly they are responsible, polite, socially and environmentally aware individuals who care deeply about the woods in which they ride. Trail building is a craft and it's endeavours have the potential to improve the tired minds of many. Trail builders are not criminals and should not be treated as such.

I reckon that I rode one of the trails mentioned by the OP last weekend. I had ridden the trail prior to this and did not expect to find ill conceived, incomplete attempts to 'put this trail beyond use' as I barrelled down it at full lick. Logs had merely been smashed out of drops and landings had been left strewn with debris. Had I come a cropper and ended up in the back of an ambulance would the person responsible be satisfied that they had caused this to occur?

We are merely riding bikes. We mean no harm.

Posted 1 year ago #
MrSmith - Member

it's not your land though is it?
at the end of day the hurtwood allow mtb'ers to ride the current trails, they could easily revoke this, the policy of no new trails is well known yet people still keep trying it on.
it wouldn't surprise me if an increase in illegal building ends up in a ban.

Posted 1 year ago #
brakes - Member

^have to say, Scargill's got a point
how does this trailbuilding inconvenience the landowner?
and who gives them the right to own the land, man

Posted 1 year ago #
psychle - Member

it wouldn't surprise me if an increase in illegal building ends up in a ban

Like to see 'em enforce it...

Posted 1 year ago #
bigyinn - Member

Its more to do with respect and liability. Respect for the landowner whose land you are premitted to ride on and ultimately liable if it all goes wrong.

Posted 1 year ago #
psychle - Member

See, I really don't get this whole 'landowner' thing here in the UK... it's a hangover from feudal days etc isn't it? It's inherited land? So not like someone bought it or something? Correct me if I'm wrong?

Posted 1 year ago #
MrSmith - Member

Correct me if I'm wrong?

not just wrong but naive and an armchair revolutionary.

Posted 1 year ago #
ArthurScargil - Member

"As I was ridin' - I saw a sign there
and that sign said - no trespassin'
but on the other side.... it didn't say nothin!
now that side was made for you and me!"

Posted 1 year ago #
Sonor - Member

they don't want you to build. It interferes with their desire to negotiate with a group of people currently seeking to obtain sole trail building rights across Hurtwood that will result in the scratched in stuff morphing into exactly what any of us can find at trail centres across the nation.

It is the Hurtwood and shere estates(the actual owners of the land) prerogative to "negotiate" with whoever they like.

Trail building is a craft and it's endeavours have the potential to improve the tired minds of many. Trail builders are not criminals and should not be treated as such.

As a trailbuilder I understand this, but the land is not ours to do whatever we like on and the owners are getting tired of trails popping up all over the place without their permission. It has got to the point where they may have to threaten legal action. This is a sorry state of affairs.

as I barrelled down it at full lick. Logs had merely been smashed out of drops and landings had been left strewn with debris. Had I come a cropper and ended up in the back of an ambulance would the person responsible be satisfied that they had caused this to occur?

As I mentioned earlier the hurtwood ranger has not put these trails beyond use, incidentally you have brought up another issue...Hurtwood have stated that they don't want jumps and drops(like CSS) on their land, because of the scenario you have mentioned.

Posted 1 year ago #
MrSmith - Member

still bitter about Maggie then Arthur

Posted 1 year ago #
psychle - Member

not just wrong but naive and an armchair revolutionary

How's it wrong? Genuinely curious here... I know some of the land would be recently purchased etc, and most of that would be off limits I guess (Private Land), but how much is 'just' landed gentry or something of the like? I honestly don't know, curious to know more...

If it is all/predominately 'inherited'/'old money' ownership, then it kind of grates on me somehow...

Some history of Shere Manor Estate... love it...

Posted 1 year ago #
glenp - Member

... they don't want you to build. It interferes with their desire to negotiate with a group of people currently seeking to obtain sole trail building rights across Hurtwood that will result in the scratched in stuff morphing into exactly what any of us can find at trail centres across the nation.
There isn't anyone with that ambition - why would they? The people who help out with things officialy are engaging with the only form of building that is acceptable to the owners. They don't get paid - they give lots of hours, and are subject to considerable frustrations because lots of stuff just isn't practical or acceptable.

The only trail that is running nicely in the winter is BKB - the reason it is built that way is not to make it a "trail centre" but so that it stays running nicely!

And. You did not read. Any wrecking of the trail has not been done by the ranger. Probably an irritated anti-biking local, of which there are many. Yet more reasons to stop this stupid inflamatory attitude. Like it or not, the only network of trails that will stay long term is the one that is allowed.

Posted 1 year ago #
ArthurScargil - Member

Hee hee. You better believe it MrSmith.

Posted 1 year ago #
jhw - Member

Can I throw this into the mix:

were the new trails causing the problem full of little features, jumps with big holes next to them, maybe even a few stupid little wooden skinnies to teeter over?

or were they more natural-style singletracks that maybe had someone go over the ground with a rake and shovel a bit, but primarily making use of the natural lay of the land.

I fully understand why the Ranger would go ballistic about trails of the first type and I agree all the trails should be sanctioned. But if you must go against the collective will - well can you just build slightly more discreet trails? With fewer "features"? Less likely to get noticed. Less likely to cause a stink if they DO get noticed because won't attract City types photographing each other getting "big air" and doing skids at weekends.

Posted 1 year ago #