Seems that general overuse of an area is being blamed on cyclists:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/leicestershire/8162676.stm

This article has really annoyed me. They don't know how the damage to the trees/undergrowth has occured but decided to blame it on cyclists. I've walked here and the trails aren't narrow enough to cause any damage to the undergrowth if you ride through. It does get busy so I can understand the conflict with other users and that is why I don't ride here. I can't see how cyclists would cause anymore damage than walkers or those using mobility scooters. And the nearby dedicated cycle path at Beacon Hill is about a 1.5 mile circuit, yeah, that should keep us happy.

If we're talking about The Outwoods, then it is a 'no go' area for cycling. Part of it is a SSSI and it is managed through legally enforceable Byelaws by Charnwood Borough Council, for whom Mark Graham works. I can see no chance for permitted access for cyclists here. There's plenty of good off road (both cheeky & legal) – mail me if you don't know where! HTH

Seems to me that if there is a bye law in place banning cyclists, there needs to be some legitimate work done to improve access around there – breaking the law – however petty it may seem – isn't going to help the cause

My main gripe is not that cyclist shouldn't be allowed there, I do think there should be restrictions as it's a very busy area. My annoyance is that cyclists often get blamed for things without any proof. It seems like just because they've caught some cyclists there, it must be them that's caused the damage.

Maybe this could be turned into an opportunity to develop the trails around the beacon.

I read the "story" in the mercury and thought there was some cheap journalism in it, however, a non cycling dog walking friend of mine has mentioned problems with cyclists on many occasions.

If we ride more sensibly and with more concern for other countryside users maybe there'd be less bad newspaper articles.

The warden in Outwoods is a right tosser IME.

The permitted 'trail' at beacon is pretty much the reason why people choose to ride in outwoods. Swithland the next nearest wood has a horse trail which is almost as bad. The rest of the stuff in these areas is technically cheeky, and obviously it doesn't make a difference to people whether the trail they're not supposed to be riding is a footpath or an SSSI.

suffered damage to trees and undergrowth

Probably not as extensive as what is being done by their petrol chainsaws and mahoosive quadbike/buggy things. And introduction of non native species of vegetation. If they insist on pruning the shrubbery obliterating masses of trees in an SSSI they should be doing it with a bow saw and a wheelbarrow if you ask me.

East Midlands SS championships round the outwoods anyone?

There's plenty of 'cheek' in the area without venturing into SSSI's and other sensitive areas – as locals know 🙂

I've been running in the Outwoods for years and I've never seen a bike there. I've also never biked there because it's an SSSI.

The whole issue with the article is that there is a vegetation problem, but it cannot be only down to cyclists, we are just an easy target.

Swadey has a point, but I can't see us getting any improvement in trails around the Beacon. The regime there appears to be develop the area into it's "natural state" complete with alpacas and wheelchair access paths!
It's not quite as draconian as Bradgate Park, but not far off.

Something that always makes me giggle is that the no bicycles sign at one of the entrances is always different. It's been through so many versions from laminated paper on a fencepost to full on metal sign. Won't they just take the hint… there's a reason why people keep nicking it!!

(This poster is not involved in any way with the theft of said no cycling sign)