Ban all motor vehicles from the legal rights of way....!
Especially some guys I know in their land rovers an discovery's who arn't able to enjoy the country side without them cos they're disabled .
Sit them on the side of the road with binoculars that what I say.
I see it as a way to be in the mountains. A way to be in places where motors are left far behind. To do it under one’s own steam, to journey from one place to another. To be at peace with the mountain environment, to be virtually silent and pass without being noticed and leaving hardly a mark. I come to it from mountaineering, from caving and from paragliding.Perhaps motorbikes have a place, bazzing round some gravel pit or a slag-heap on the edge of the M1 at Barnsley but not in the fells, moors and mountains,
While I'm sympathetic to your view, it seems slightly over-romanticised to me. The Dales are beautiful and generally peaceful, but as you know, also a busy and occasionally noisy working environment.
Long Lane and Sulber looked lovely in your shots, but what if the farmer was razzing his quad-bike up there to feed those sheep? I wouldn't be particularly affronted by that noise or intrusion, just as I'm not bothered if I hear blasting and trucks in a quarry when I'm on the hill, or I get buzzed by a couple of Hawk trainers. True peace and solitude are rare commodities on most of the trade routes of the Dales.
If bikers are chewing up a particularly vulnerable stretch of ground, then I'm against that, and that includes mtbers as well as motorised ones. But I confess I've come across groups of motorbikers only very occasionally on green lanes in the Dales, and they've never caused me more than a brief disturbance.
Presumably the view of the countryside from the side of the road with binoculars will be pretty much the same as that from a dirt track?
IanMunro.......you think so !!!!
yossarian - MemberJust accept that
1. Most mtbers don't support off road motor bike access issues
2. The few that do also ride off road motor bikes
No, don't, because it's cobblers. If you want proof, I am it 
Just a classic example of human nature... You lot are bottled onto a ridiculously small number of legal trails, and have to share it with horses, walkers and greenlaners. Instead of trying to get out of the bottle, you fight with the other folks that have been shoved in there with you. Even if you win, you'll still be stuck in a bottle.
Funnily enough Chris, I've heard almost exactly the same arguments made against mountain bikes!
Does no-one remember Mike V@ndem@n?
Bikes should be restricted to paved roads, as is the rule in Yosemite National Park. Without these large pieces of machinery on our trails, we can all enjoy the trails on an equal footing.
The problem is the bicycles themselves. Bikes, especially with knobby tires, greatly accelerate erosion, killing any plants and animals that happen to be on or under the trail. The tires create V-shaped grooves that are difficult and dangerous to walk on. The presence of bikes ruins the experience of real, un-artificial nature that most of us are seeking. The bikes force everyone to watch out for their safety, when they would prefer to enjoy nature, peace, and quiet. And, more subtle, but probably more important in the long run, bikes make it much easier for more people to get into wildlife habitat, driving out the wildlife. Bikers advertize their rides as being from 15 to 60 miles long -- FAR farther than a hiker normally travels. That represents a lot of disturbed wildlife habitat!
Remember, if you mention his name three times, he will appear
Just a classic example of human nature... You lot are bottled onto a ridiculously small number of legal trails, and have to share it with horses, walkers and greenlaners. Instead of trying to get out of the bottle, you fight with the other folks that have been shoved in there with you. Even if you win, you'll still be stuck in a bottle.
Totally wrong. Wronger than wrong in fact. You are living in the past. On your own. In a bottle or something.
Registered disabled carriages are exempt from parts of NERC and all the TROs in the Dales (I don’t know about the rest of England and Wales) exempt them too. So if you are genuinely disabled, you are free to use them on the green lanes. I would welcome them too.
http://www.yorkshiredales.org.uk/notice_of_making-2.pdf
The regulations set out what they are, I’d have to look it up again but basically there is a power restriction, a speed restriction (10mph I think) etc. So if you are genuinely disabled then provision has been made. Of course if you want to use the disabled argument in a devious way……….
At the NERC Bill stage disabled groups lobbied the govenement to stop allowing motors on green lanes. They felt that green lanes should be a place where blind or deaf people should be able to go and ‘feel’ the isolation without meeting motors. They also argued that learning-disabled people were confused when they saw motors on green lanes and that was a problem. They also argued that green lanes (because they generally were stile free, better graded etc) were better suited for people of poor mobility and that they could be damaged by ruts from recreational motors which was damaging a too-rare rescource for them. You might not agree with that but it’s a matter of record
C
yossarian - MemberTotally wrong. Wronger than wrong in fact. You are living in the past. On your own.
Must have imagined this entire thread, and every other one like it, and every incident of trail contention in history.
WhatA
Load
Of
Bollocks
Classic!
WALOB is now part of my Vocabulary. Thanks yossarian.
ChrisE I'll pass that on ...thanks
I'm a lover of the solitude, the peace and quiet that you find in the mountains.
ChrisE doesn't speak for me. I reckon there's room enough for everyone with a bit of common sense and responsibility.
I reckon I've less in common with you than I have with walkers to be honest
Good. I'm happy to be more like the trail riders on here than those who affiliate with the ramblers. Ramblers have more in common with those who would seek to remove trespassers forcibly or booby trap legitimate trails. As often as not they are ignorant of the rights of other people to be there and often ignorant of the rights of way classification of the path they're on. I'm going to add to all that ignorance by ignoring you too in future. That way we'll both be happy - there's room for everyone on the forum just as there's room for everyone on the trails.
Fortunately this thread has restored my faith in MTBers as not all in the pocket of the red socks.
I'm glad I live the other end of the country to you.
Nick,
I don't have much to do with ramblers myself but I'm a bit disturbed that you think they, as a group, have a commonality with people that booby-trap cycle trails [with intent to injure]
C
there's room for everyone on the forum just as there's room for everyone on the trails.
in the past some of the pro trail rider/off roaders on this forum have suggested that if i object to the noise/erosion/aggression of off roaders on byways that I stop riding them and choose other routes
there is room for differing opinions but i still believe that mountain bikers will blow any possibility of getting more extensive access if they choose to align with and defend a recreational activity that only has a negative impact
I know Nick won’t agree with me, but I am agreeing with Antigee, I know it would be suicide to cuddle up to the motor lobby. Think about it, take off your cycling hat and look at it from the point of view of an everyday person, not connected with MTBs.
Think about the way things have moved over the last 10/15 years. We can put our eggs in the basket with motorists that have been legislated against over those years and the government has shown every sign of wanting to squeeze them even more. Reviewing use of motors in National Parks, pushing for parishes and citizens to take refusals for TROs to inquiry, pushing for a more environmentally sensitive exercising public. Or we can be what we are. Going out in the countryside, in peace and quiet, without fumes and engine noise, getting fitter.
It’s a no-brainer. Imagine where we would be now if we had aligned ourselves with motors 10 years ago. Led down the river then sunk.
The TRF, LARA and others will have members say you use your car to get to the trails, you ride too fast and piss walkers off and so on. What they will not do is put up a sensible positive argument. Because there isn’t one.
C
Sadly Chris E you are probably right in what you say & to be honest I very rarely see any motorised offroaders where I ride especially since they closed the ridgeway. However, there are many other things that restrict my enjoyment of cycling round the chilterns, horses churning up paths into unrideable mud in the winter & it drying to a corrugated finish for the summer, the shooting crowd disturbing the peace with shotgun blasts & having to dodge shot birds as they fall from the sky is particularly unpleasant. Unlike you I don't go around trying to get other peoples pastimes & enjoyment of the countryside restricted or banned totally but instead seek an alternative path for my pleasure when the need arises 
& yes this is speaking as an ex trail rider albeit only very infrequently & not at all in the past 25yrs
When I was a kid the Ridgeway saw hardly any 4x4 traffic, and was fine. As off-roading gained popularity in the late '80s and '90s it became increasingly unpleasant - huge great mud-filled gouges to wade through or pick your way around. It made everyone I knew very cross, so much so that our local MP spent a long time trying to get a private members bill through to close it. I don't think he ever succeeded.
But last time I was up there it was much better. I guess the closure is working.
Sorry - been away trying to get that really annoying paraglider out of the field at the back, can't do with all that nylon crap destroying my view
There is no 'positive arguement' any more so then the one you put forward for mtb. the only arguement is the one backed by law - I don't trail ride any more but I seriously think that curtailing the rights of the few who still do it legally and sensibly is so narrow minded. Chris, you climb? How would you like it if someone came round and told you you couldn't climb at Arncliffe, Malham, Gordale? all because someone had issues with the language, litter, climbers spoilt the views of the crags?? stupid isn't it - but what is really the difference?
the only arguement is the one backed by law - I don't trail ride any more but I seriously think that curtailing the rights of the few who still do it legally and sensibly is so narrow minded. Chris, you climb? How would you like it if someone came round and told you you couldn't climb
well there is no right to climb. (that was a full stop)
there may be right of access
the difference between trail riding/4wds ripping up green lanes and climbing is that though there is no right to climb it is not seen by most as a damaging antisocial activity
- there are parking, conservation and excess use problems but none that can't be usually resolved through commonsense agreements and that is because at the end of the day climbing, like riding a bike isn't destructive or very intrusive
(Hand up! yes I did voluntary work on access issues for the BMC, albeit 20yrs ago - actually covering the crags listed)
in the past some of the pro trail rider/off roaders on this forum have suggested that if i object to the noise/erosion/aggression of off roaders on byways that I stop riding them and choose other routes
My emphasis. They have a perfectly legitimate right to be on byways.
Seeing as 98% of the trail network is closed to 4x4s and trail riders, as someone else on STW has remarked "a blind chimpanzee sticking a pin into a map could pick you a suitable trail where you could avoid such conflicts."
My emphasis. They have a perfectly legitimate right to be on bywaysas we all know - the owners could also choose to scrap them without breaking any laws
"a blind chimpanzee sticking a pin into a map could pick you a suitable trail where you could avoid such conflicts."
actually after it was (politely) suggested in past post that i go pedal elsewhere i did consider looking at alternatives to some of the byways i regularly ride and found with a couple that the only alternative was tarmac - one exception to this being Stanage Causeway - an interesting compare and contrast - the Causeway and adjacent moorland wrecked by 4wds/offroaders and the Plantation Bridleway well used but even the unflagged section not eroded but extensively used by MTB's
This article - from 2002 - is the kind of thing I mean. It was this kind of behaviour that means off-road 4x4 drivers and motorbike riders get little or no sympathy now when they come mewling about their lack of access.
"Traffic is at its height during the wettest weekends and bank holidays, and not infrequently at night. Vehicles are now using an Iron Age barrow as a ramp."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1390254/4x4-drivers-run-roughshod-over-Ridgeway-code.html
EDIT [deep breath, and relax]: that's not sharing.
Yes, because woe betide a small minority of irresponsible users should spoil it for the rest of them...
Would be interesting to know what happened with this.
EDIT: with the awesome power of google, seems like the council have taken things in hand, and bikes were never allowed there in the first place, merely tolerated. So somewhat irrelevant to this thread.
Going back to the original post, the Trail Riders Fellowship have put in byway claims on many routes over the years, all over England and Wales. Many of these routes were either recorded as footpaths or not recorded at all. However, if there wasn't sufficient evidence to support a byway claim, these routes ended up as bridleways instead. IMO horse riders and motorcyclists seem the most proactive at submitting definitive map modification orders. Not to mention that since NERC, although many TRF byway claims can't proceed to full byway status, they are still able to be recorded as 'resticted' byways, which are open to ALL non motorised users.
One thing NIMBY types forget is that trail riders aren't just going to give up their hobby and take up knitting or something. They WILL carry on, and nothing short of a jail sentence will stop them. The majority of the general public don't mind trail bikes, live and let live etc, I've *never* had any problems. There are a small minority of hell-bent NIMBYs, but most of these are >50 yr old semi retired townies, who will hopefully pop their clogs in a few more years.
</troll>
The NIMBYs have no proper sensible arguments, just overblown hyperbole and outlandish tales that they then try to influence their parish council/MP with. Pretty much all their arguments can be refuted or discredited, leaving them with no option but to discredit the hard work and successes of organisations such as the TRF.
For an island as overcrowded as Britain, I think that it's pretty remarkable that there are still rights of way open to all users. It would be a really sad day if the NIMBYs get their way. The only people who would ultimately benefit from such a restriction would be landowners, who would no longer have a public road across their land.
You must log in to post.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
