I’ve just read the latest IMBA newsletter and was struck by the fact that it mentions exclusively: Whinlatter, Wharncliffe & The Seven Stanes

nothing about ancient trails at all. Now, without getting into a manmade/’natural’ which-is-better comparison, how much of your riding is trail centres, and is it sensible for them to apparently concentrate their attention on these alone ? Does this mean IMBA have sidelined themselves ? In terms of miles a year, my trail centre usage is about 3%

I have never read an IMBA newsletter. 🙂

I have a vague sense that, like the CTC, LCC and Sustrans, they do something, and it is probably quite helpful but not of huge significance.

I have a vague sense that they are dwindling into nonentity…

there used to be an underused IMBA tab in the forum which was silently dropped

To answer your question, Simon, I’ve ridden one trail centre in my life. It was OK, but beacuse it was at a working Welsh forest, there wasn’t much to see. I’d rather have a view, as I did yesterday.

BD makes a good point. They all have their relevance these organisations, but each time their focus narrows, there needs to be a replacement in the areas now missed. That is, if it warrants focussing on, say, ROW issues.

It’s not an organisaiton I have ever felt represents me, so have not paid it much attention.

My normal playground is the peaks. I’ll maybe do 5% a year at trail centres. Even when I go the Alps, it’s mostly natural stuff. maybe 75/25 split then.

they ado something, and it is probably quite helpful but not of huge significance.

I lost patience with them when they joined up with a 4×4 group to sanitise a trail in Grizedale, as I felt they were NOT representative or helpful 🙁 And they lost the useful Mark Greylish when he emigrated…

I haven’t had a newsletter from them for ages, but the older ones I used to get had lots of stuff on RoW issues.

As an aside, I get the sense that RoW stuff is a lot of effort for little reward compared to building purpose-built trails. If you want to upgrade a RoW for mountain bike use, or prevent it being downgraded, there is a huge amount of work involved, legal costs and a tangled beaureaucratic process. All of this makes little difference to the quality of the route on the ground. IMBA UK has I think one paid officer and the rest of its members and committee are volunteers. I’m therefore not surprised that they are focusing on trail centres if that is the case.

If you want to upgrade a RoW for mountain bike use

…or you can even make things worse as in the BW from Street Gate (Malham) which was downgraded to a FP after attempts were made to upgrade the FP connection to Arncliffe 🙁

Having been involved with IMBA-UK for a while my frustration was the reliance on volunteer time. This is not a criticism in any way and the effort people put into the group is to be commended.

The issue is more that to do what they set out to do (in my perception) they need full time representation in the same way that CTC has. Of course this requires funding and so the loop starts.

I think they have the potential to be a very relevant organisation but can’t see the support and structure being around without formally linking in with an existing group such as CTC.

i think their thunder got stolen on advocacy issues by the CTC too. When IMBA started the CTC did member services and didn’t do much advocacy for off-road cyclists, so IMBA had the potential to fill the void. The CTC seem to have upped their game a bit in recent years.

Their website is still a useful source of info:

Home

They do some good stuff in the states, but they have no relevance to me up here in Northern Scotland.

Who, what where?

It’s not an organisaiton I have ever felt represents me, so have not paid it much attention.

Pretty much sums up my feelings, I’ve no real need for a ROW organisation where I ride, and if I did, I’m more than capable of sorting it myself (as I have done in the past)

>but they have no relevance to me up here in Northern Scotland<

For that matter, what relevance do they have to riders anywhere in Scotland? IMBAS membership up here is microscopic and I’d be surprised if CTC’s is much better.

I think most folk on here have a vague notion there is, or was, a kind of symbiotic relationship with IMBA and the FC in the Borders but where else have they made a difference? A charge that has also been levelled at CTC (in Scotland)

For example: what are both of these org’s actually doing on the long winded ‘Sustainable Development of Mountain Biking in Scotland committee?’ The one the FC, Scottish Cycling and others have been fannying around with for a few years – talking the talk but producing nothing of any substance…

There was a move to form a new organisation to get some answers / to get some genuine rider representation on this quango in waiting but the mtb community in general appears very apathetic to the idea i.e why do we need to do anything – we just go ride whilst the public bodies dictate ‘mtb policy’ for us.

Scottish Cycling should be taking care of this but I dont believe they are

I supose part of it is most of the member groups are trial building ones. Now Colin is back with CTC on a more formal footing it’ll be interesting to see how things pan out between the two organisations.

It may be that IMBA stays with the infra structure side trail building, trail networks, though hopefully getting more into influencing rights of way construction. 2m wide no no no no no. Although getting below that distance really depends on having supportive rights of way people or atleast mildly secptical ones who trust you.

CTC could end up leading on the access side with support from IMBA. Getting rights of way upgrades. Not sure there is enough money going round to start duplicating efforts between organisations and perhaps its time to play to the relevent strengths.

we just go ride whilst the public bodies dictate ‘mtb policy’ for us

DO they ? I’ve never seen a ranger never mind a public body on a trail, so I think they have very little effect at all…

I have a vague sense that, like the CTC, LCC and Sustrans, they do something, and it is probably quite helpful but not of huge significance

…………….to you. For someone who normally displays a wide view on things, I find that strangely blinkered BD.

I find that strangely blinkered BD

I thought it realistic! I’m an affiliate member of the CTC for the 3rd party insurance cover, but I rarely read the newsletters or pay any attention to what they say and do, and compared to many bikers I’m quite proactive. In general I think mountain bikers tend to be hedonistic rather than campaigning. I believe the CTC have a stated aim to extend Scottish access rules to England & Wales, but I doubt it will happen in my lifetime, or whether it would make much difference to my riding if it did…

SFB, your view is as blinkered as BD’s in as much as it only concerns the CTC’s input into MTBing. My view is that the CTC are hugely influential in the promotion of cycling in society and certain aspects of it’s input ( Bikeability training for instance )does and will have a huge cultural impact.

SFB, your view is as blinkered as BD’s in as much as it only concerns the CTC’s input into MTBing

it’s not blinkered not to look. Whatever the CTC do has little relevance to me – I’m not sure the whole of cycling has much cultural significance.

I cancelled membership to IMBA after I realised they weren’t really interested in opening up access and the farce of a membership consultation with heavily weighted answers. The fact my email raising genuine concerns about the consultation was censored didn’t go down well either.

it’s not blinkered not to look

Well that makes a lot of sense.

I’m not sure the whole of cycling has much cultural significance.

That’s because, by your own admission, you’re not looking.

it’s not blinkered not to look
Well that makes a lot of sense.

what I mean is, I’m aware of the CTC, but one only has a certain amount of attention to bestow on everything, and the CTC, while worthy, isn’t exciting. They certainly couldn’t make me any more interested in cycling…

That’s because, by your own admission, you’re not looking

a casual glance around the streets & hills is all one needs to see that bikes don’t make much impact on most people’s lives

Well my june riding was as follows

Mabie
Dalbeattie
Ae
Mabie
Kirroughtree
Kirroughtree

So yeah, 100% trails. I love em!

They certainly couldn’t make me any more interested in cycling

Luckily, the youth of the nation aren’t as narrow minded and lots and lots of them are taking up Bikeability training.

a casual glance around the streets & hills is all one needs to see that bikes don’t make much impact on most people’s lives

Well seeing as you’re employing such detailed scientific data analysis to form your opinions, I’ll disregard the fact that, due to the nature of my job, I see people cycling in increasing numbers and have access to the data that proves it. I’ll conceed the argument to you.

>>They certainly couldn’t make me any more interested in cycling
Luckily, the youth of the nation aren’t as narrow minded

I meant because I’m already obsessed with it :o)

I see people cycling in increasing numbers

more than zero isn’t necessarily a lot. It’s a science thing. And you have no easy way to measure how much of the increase is due to the CTC (if any)

I have to agree that in hindsight the biggest failure of IMBA as a project has been a lack of emphasis on the rights of way issues.

Having been involved for a good while in the project before stepping down for more personal reasons (And I wish to make it clear that this isn’t a dig against anyone involved) I always argued that it was important to get the funding sorted, and there was a lot of initial goodwill and momentum from the trade lost through a reluctance to formalise the status of the organisation (eg. as a charity). The money offered to us by a couple of bike companies could have made a huge difference to the ability to fund some serious work, with a part time paid coordinator or even the ability to pay expenses for work done by volunteers in attending meetings etc. Which would have taken it to another level.

Equally, I think its important to realise the complexity of ROW issues, and the timescale and devotion involved in anything ROW orientated is just ridiculous, the whole ROW arena is a mess, and I doubt that even CTC could devote adequate resources to make a dent in the backlog.

Simons comment about Arncliffe cote is unfair to those involved, including the council, and fails to recognise the long history of arguments over that route or the background of IMBA’s involvement, whereby the route had been misrecorded one way or the other for decades, and the appeal for evidence was towards the end of a process of argument since long before most of us were born.

As an aside, I think that the formation of IMBA lit a big rocket under the CTC’s backside, and made them view offroad cycling in a far more important light, with the creation of a part time post, and then a full time officer with a campaign post. There are valid criticism to be made about the MTB communities reluctance to further its own cause, and the comments above about hedonistic versus campaigning – and I think that we as a group need to learn lessons from Ramblers Associations approach, but also from professional groups like the open spaces Society and CPRE.

Simons comment about Arncliffe cote is unfair to those involved

I’m only looking at what, not how…

and I think that we as a group need to learn lessons from Ramblers Associations approach, but also from professional groups like the open spaces Society and CPRE.

but seriously, I don’t think that will ever happen – because the people who are drawn to MTB tend to be thrill seekers with short attention spans, making them inherently disorganised. I got involved in consultative stuff over ROWs and it was deeply, deeply boring 🙁 And in any case, it’s more or less irrelevant – there’s no funding to regulate what we do off in the wilds, nor likely to be, so the law, whatever ass it may be, leaves us to do as we please…

Never been to a trail centre. Always been too busy riding my bike on the great natural trails closer to home.

I’m only looking at what, not how…

I don’t feel cause and effect follows through there Simon, these things are decided on the facts and evidence, In this case there just wasn’t the evidence, regardless of IMBA’s involvement. IMBA didn’t make it worse if you see what I mean.

because the people who are drawn to MTB tend to be thrill seekers with short attention spans, making them inherently disorganised.

I’ve thought for a while that this may be a valid point.

I got involved in consultative stuff over ROWs and it was deeply, deeply boring

Unfortunately true!

>DO they ? I’ve never seen a ranger never mind a public body on a trail, so I think they have very little effect at all… <

Try re reading the OP and have another wee think about it 😉

Public bodies of one sort or another ( and that includes the Forestry Commission) have fed £millions into trail centres up and down the country. To say that the FC for example have not dictated policy and have had no effect on mountain biking – positive and otherwise is just being obtuse

Public bodies of one sort or another ( and that includes the Forestry Commission) have fed £millions into trail centres up and down the country. To say that the FC for example have not dictated policy and have had no effect on mountain biking – positive and otherwise is just being obtuse

by ‘OP’ do you mean:

we just go ride whilst the public bodies dictate ‘mtb policy’ for us

I still think they have very little effect. Millions of pounds isn’t much money. But then, I don’t ride much in trail centres, and even when I do I often use the original bridleways instead. Occasionally public bodies mess up the trails by sanitising them, but usually a year or 2 of rain washes the work away, and they only do little bits. And building or ruining trails is not really ‘MTB policy’, oftentimes the work isn’t addressed to bikes at all…

>Millions of pounds isn’t much money.

Can you spare me half a million mister? I reckon even half a million is still ten time what’s gone through the books of IMBA UK since it was formed

I’m an IMBA rep for my area but to be honest I am beginning to feel little like Simon in terms of how the organisation is headed. I’m not entirely convinced of it’s relevance to the riding I do as I also rarely ride tail centres. As has been pointed out though, the work required on ROW is so complex it is far beyond the time available to most of the volunteer members.

I’m also concerned about the way in which CTC stepped up their efforts to entice the “MTB market” when IMBA got going, I said at the time I had my concerns and of late I’ve heard little about CTC’s efforts for MTBers except for the fact they’ve shut the “clear that trail” site (http://www.clearthattrail.org.uk/) as it’s not worth them bothering. Ok, fairpl ay to them for concentratin resources where they;re best used, but *why* is it not worth them bothering? Do you really not care about trails, or were you unaware of it, or do you simply not give a toss?

I occasionally used the “clear that trail” site and it did get a couple of local access issues solved. Most mountain bikers I told about the site didn’t know it existed so I can see it didn’t get much use.

TBH – I think that there’s a lot of experience and knowledge out there from all the guys who were involved in IMBA that the CTC, with their resources and lobby power could draw on to build something beneficial to all, maybe its time to look at where we all go next?

>I occasionally used the “clear that trail” site

I reported half a dozen issued myself, none of them were ever followed up to my knowledge

can’t see the imba are entirely relevant in this country.

I was very close to joining, but then looking at the ctc the insurance s the same, they have a strong mtb side, Ian Warby etc. and campaign for other issues which affect me – bikes on trains etc.

joined the CTC.

Ok, fairplay to them for concentrating resources where they’re best used, but *why* is it not worth them bothering? Do you really not care about trails, or were you unaware of it, or do you simply not give a toss?

I see the CTC as being very British, very stodgy & quaint – their magazine features an obituaries column. I remain to be convinced about their effectiveness as advocates for mountain biking. I care passionately about the trails, but I think their existence relies on use (very democratic) and the coming and going of institutions over the centuries not very important.

When Yorkshire Dales National Park were consulting on green lane issues and the possibility of management of them (for all users) they set up a committee with reps from Ramblers, 4x4s, trail motor bikes, wildlife groups etc. IMBA were given a seat on there as the MTB rep. They virtually never turned up and never sent answers to any of the consulatations.

You can say what you like about the drudge of answering these consultations etc but the facts are public authorities have to consult and then have to take account of the responses in coming to their decisions. By none of us being bothered then we reep as we sow.

C

By none of us being bothered then we reep as we sow.

I don’t think we should beat ourselves up about this – if we were able to sit on committees we’d not be bothered about biking – the exclusion is institutional. But as for reaping – gates and gravel appear and then subsequently fall into disrepair – one might as well accept them as a kind of magic…