The Peaks are crowded? LOL!

Like any National Park, depends where you go. It has its honeypot areas just like all National Parks. I tend to choose my rides (and my riding times) quite carefully to avoid any conflict, it allows me to ride more or less where I want because frankly, the state of some of the BWs here is appalling and no fun to ride.

Whatever idiot decided that dumping hundreds of thousands of tons of gravel over everything was “trail maintenance” really needs shooting.

That’s why the trails are in the state they are, precisely because it IS so crowded and gets such heavy use and because the thousands of tons of gravel just washes off after 2 winters, creating huge ruts and runnels and increasing water erosion elsewhere. Restricting trail usage or banning 4x4s doesn’t really work, it concentrates the problem in smaller and smaller areas. The massive irony is that walkers campaigned tirelessy for “open access” which they’ve now got but they all just stick to the same bloody paths! And then moan about anyone else using them.

I rode the Kinder circuit yesterday finishing at noon. Maybe most folk ride/walk in the aft as I saw only 4 riders and a french walker upto the end!

In 15 years of using the Peak I can honestly say I’ve never had an issue with crowding other than the kiosk at Fairhomes & that’s using some pretty popular and heavily used routes.

As Hora says, a tiny amount of forethought in time and route means you can easily avoid most people.

they came for the 4*4’s and i said nothing cos i wasn’t a 4*4er. They came for the motorcyclists, but i said nothing cos i wasn’t a motorcyclist. then they (probably walkers) came for the mtb’ers, but there was no one left to say anything….

Very soon they wont be able to afford fuel for leisure use.

This very quiet peaks where is it??????????The tractors make the same noise as anywhere else.The chainsaws are not quiet.The quarrys make alot of noise.I think someone has his head in the sand.Live in the countryside its not quiet.

For those interested in RoW cases, a very important judgement today in the High Court. One that has been waited for a long time

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2012/2634.html&query=Tilbury&method=boolean

It should mean about 5 or 600 routes that might have had motor rights can now only realistically have horse and cart rights.

C

Danger with that is the more you ban means some people will ride anywhere.Lets face it its been done before and will be done again people will take of there number plates when they go off-roading so they become just like a mountain bikes untraceable one KTM would look like another to most people.

ChrisE – Member

For those interested in RoW cases, a very important judgement today in the High Court. One that has been waited for a long time

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2012/2634.html&query=Tilbury&method=boolean

It should mean about 5 or 600 routes that might have had motor rights can now only realistically have horse and cart rights.How is that a very important judgement? Perhaps you meant to post a different link? The one you post describes an argument over map scales on a particular BOAT application in Dorset. The conclusion appears to be that the council were right to reject the application as the materials of the applicant were not up to spec, and the applicant appears not to understand this. ie it’s a procedural issue unique to this case, nothing to do with the bigger issue of land access for vehicles. Yet 600 routes are now bolloxed for motors? Please explain.

The NERC Act stopped the recording of any new Byways Open to All Traffic as was set out by the government but with a number of exemptions including one aimed at protecting applicants that had made BOAT applications in good faith, in good time before the Act.

There were a large number of BOAT applications that it was thought beat the NERC deadline but they were warned that they failed because the maps attached were deffective. Now that has been held to be true they fail. Being not-NERC-exempt any motor rights were extinguished, by statute, on 2 May 2006. They can now only become restricted byways that the most.

C

ty Chris. It seems strange that such a large number of presumably un-related applications in different parts of the country would all make the same mistake in their maps. Not saying that isn’t the case, but I wonder how such a technical error could be propagated like that.

Interesting thread.

@Chris E – I have lived in the Peak Park for 20 years and don’t recognise this haven of peace and tranquillity of which you speak.

There are quarries in operation, aggregate trucks travelling the roads, stone cutting works, cement production facilities, and farms with all of their associated mechanisation and noise. On top of this there are all the visitors who arrive in the assorted cars, vans, buses, motorbikes, 4x4s and MX bikes. We are on the flight path to Manchester airport so the sound of jets passing overhead is an almost endless background accompaniment to life out here. It is far from a tranquil wilderness, it is very much a working landscape.

ChrisE – can the ramblers expect such fervent blinkered support for their cause from you when they campaign to ban mountain bikes from popular bridleways?

I know of one mountain rescue member who is already arguing for seasonal access only.

Your viewpoint is both selfish and short sighted.

edit – actually, you’re right. Thinking about it clearly, Roych Clough is ever so noisy. Perhaps we can work together on my next campaign …

BAN THE PLANES LANDING AT MANCHESTER FROM FLYING OVER KINDER SCOUT!!!

+1 on the selfish and short sighted.

Could I remind everyone who is not in favor of this ban to not only voice their opinion here but more importantly email the relevant people.

you need this website….

http://www.peakdistrict.gov.uk/looking-after/consultations/tro-consultation-2012

and these emails

long.causeway@peakdistrict.gov.uk
roych@peakdistrict.gov.uk

Emailed

I think it is very likely that in some years to come, ‘offroading’ (as it is colloquially called) will be stopped in all National Parks and they will be set aside as a place for peaceful enjoyment, fresh air and fitness and as such to be a ‘special’ place, different to the rest of the nation’s countryside.

One assumes you’re a roadie who got lost and ended up on an MTB forum then? What happens when someone decides “offroading” also covers mountain biking off road?

There were a large number of BOAT applications that it was thought beat the NERC deadline but they were warned that they failed because the maps attached were deffective. Now that has been held to be true they fail.

ChrisE, like Garry_Lager I’m still not sure how the Dorset case linked would affect any other current applications to upgrade routes to BOAT status, unless you’re suggesting the TRF have used 1/50:000 mapping for all their applications nationwide. If so, someone somewhere has badly screwed up.

Perhaps though, DEFRA guidance is worded incorrectly somewhere and maybe the TRF relied on just one piece of incorrect guidance?

Specifically about the case in Dorset, I understand his (and indeed OS’s) argument and interpretation of “to a scale of not less than 1:25,000”, nevertheless it seems to me the decision takes an excessively strict interpretation of what constitutes 25k mapping (in this case a 50k OS map zoomed in so as to be effectively at 25k scale, rather than a plain extract of a 25k map).

The TRF (and others) saw the writing was on the wall so rushed to put in many, many DMMOs from 2003. The Government (then Labour, Alun Michael) had been making noises from then that they thought recreational motor vehicles on non-surfaced public rights of way were inappropriate and a bad thing for other users including walkers, cyclists and horseriders. The application procedure, set out in the WCA is simple but is strict. You’re quoting “to a scale of not less than 1:25,000” is not quite right as it actually says “a map drawn to the prescribed scale and showing the way or ways to which the application relates” In the regulations that scale is defined as 1:25000.

Now the TRF were very sloppy in putting in such a rush of applications. Some had just a list, no copies of evidence attached (Winchester showed they failed) and many had blown-up maps. Now those have been shown to fail too. They were arguing that a road atlas, blown up lots of times with highlighter drawn track (from A to B) would suffice as being “a map drawn to the prescribed scale”

Hence the large number nation wide and presumably why the TRF sunk a huge amount of money into this. Incidentally (and not really related) but this year NERC has produced it’s first mountainbike-bridleway. A part of NERC set out a new law that means using a cycle on a track for a qualifying period would create a bridleway. Prior to NERC this was not possible. Walkers enjoyed a right to ‘create’ footpaths, horseriders a right to ‘create’ bridleways but cyclists strangely did not. We have NERC to thank for setting that right.

C

So all that case proves is that you can make up some rules and all historical evidence is rendered obsolete

It proves nothing in the way of actual evidence of disruption or discomfort that many people cite as the reason for banning or downgrading rights of way

Red tape & bureaucracy at it’s best

Fair point. Whilst there’s no excuse for rushing out a load applications with poorly copied maps, I still think the Dorset case (25k VS a zoomed in 50k) is a bit harsh.

For others who are interested, the Byways and Bridleways Trust is a good resource.

[edit]

^ in response to ChrisE BTW, I took an hour as I forgot to press “post” 😮

Chris is right the TRF did panic and put all those applications in but was worth a try and they are only a small group seeing the rights being hammered.
Rogerthecat and Pook that is how the Peaks is to me still a great place but hardly quiet Goyt Valley and so on.
This is the problem everybody sees the countryside differently and as a race we struggle to get on!!!!!!Just look around the world these days.