What a joke, trail centre status has ruined the riding there

TrailTeam Swinley
2 hrs ·
Sandy Cutting Closure
The Crown Estate has announced they will close the Sandy Cutting (also known amongst the mountain bikers as the Jump Gully) with immediate effect.
Although popular, Sandy Cutting has been the site of many accidents over its lifetime – too many. During the latest inspection by The Crown Estate, it was finally decided to close it.
Having looked at the accident rates for the last 12 months with The Crown Estate, Sandy Cutting accounts for over 40% of all reported incidents in the forest. This is not sustainable or defendable for The Crown Estate, and TrailTeam Swinley supports this decision.
We understand that there are many mountain bikers who will be very upset by this decision and we would like to remind them that at the end of the day, The Crown Estate have a responsibility to all users of their land and it would be irresponsible to keep a feature known to be a high cause of incidents open.
The Crown Estate have asked anyone who wants to discuss this with them to call 01753 860 222

I can sort of see the point
Trouble was it was close to a blue trail so it got lots of passing traffic
But because it was not part of the official trail it got dug up and “improved.
If it were tucked way out of sight I dont think it would have been closed

What would be really great if it was replaced with a run of mini-doubles / table tops that were properly designed and available for practice.

It survived for years without an issue. The new trails brought too much traffic so statistically it’s an accident hot spot. People will still crash, just normally it’s spread out.

Plus it’s a bit crap anyway, though I kind of liked it as it was something I could fly down with my limited jump skills and still get a little air. That’s the weird thing though. You have to make an effort to badly crash there.

Why is it the responsibility of the landowner?
Whatever happened to personal responsibility. 🙁

You fall off, your problem.

Mind you, then we get into the debate about personal insurance vs the free NHS…

<lights touchpaper, retires>

Sad but not surprising.

For all those who want to “legalise” (not that its technically illegal) riding on footpaths take note. As soon as you kick the sleeping dog it will bite you.

Land owners, councils and any other group you can identify will want to distance themselves from liability – so make it legal you will end up making it sanitised.

It’s been an accident hotspot long before the trail centre opened, that has just increased traffic. All the jumps are rollable and unchallenging on the easy line. They won’t build any more jumps as this will just recreate the problem regardless of how well they are built as daytrippers and kiddies on BSOs will still ride, crash and sue.

Aiui trail team swinley had the nod to build some graded freeride runs on the hill opposite the jump gulley but other urgent maintenance and lack of resources has kept that on the back burner.

I pretty much stopped riding at Swinley after the official trails went up, and this just further highlights why.

Why is it the responsibility of the landowner?
Whatever happened to personal responsibility.

Go on then, I’ll start.

Doesn’t need to be their responsibility for them to want to stop people getting hurt.

I pretty much stopped riding at Swinley after the official trails went up, and this just further highlights why.

How? Because a trail you chose to not ride can now not be ridden? Because people get injured? Iz confused.

I remember that from the good old days (1997-2000)

who reports a crash?

Generally a landowner does not have responsibility for a natural feature but does for an improved one or one explicitly created even if they didn’t create it. This doesn’t apply to legal rights of way which are the responsibility of the local highways authority.

So if you fall off and injure yourself riding across a field then it’s basically your responsibility but if you built a set of jumps and injured yourself then the landowner bears some of that responsibility.

Sad times. The jump gully taught me a lot. I’ve also met some good friends there.

To get there you have to ride the red though (for the newbies/in-experienced) so they’ve already tackled similar jumps before that so it’s interesting that it accounts for 40% of accidents. I wonder if it’s the fact that people push harder because everyone can see you riding the jumps along the whole stretch?

Old Swinley is still mostly all there and possible to avoid the new stuff and still keep to my old routes. Though did used to stop off at the gully for a few laps before heading elsewhere.

Though I do admit I rarely go there these days (other night being a rare exception but that was a fair bit of old school off-piste and quite fun in the dark 😀 ). That said, it’s more that Surrey Hills, Tunnel Hill and various other places just offer way more for me than Swinley rather than the presence of the new trails.

Why is it the responsibility of the landowner?
Whatever happened to personal responsibility.

You fall off, your problem.

This would appear to be the common sense approach, but when riding at Swinley was allowed but informal Crown Estates found themselves being sued for damages by people who fell off (I think one pay out was in the region of £50k)

Thats why Swinley was trail-centerized. The trails are graded and there are big warning signs, so if you fall off it’s your problem.

The alternative would have been to ban all riding there.

Doesn’t need to be their responsibility for them to want to stop people getting hurt.

plus the massive cost to the air ambulance service.

Maybe they should build future jump areas next to hospital A&E departments, would save a lot of money?

To get there you have to ride the red though (for the newbies/in-experienced) so they’ve already tackled similar jumps before that

Whaaaat?

a) there’s nothing like that on red and
b) you can get there on any number of fire-roads

Re the old riding – they probably don’t care, but now they’ve told you not to do it so it’s your problem. As un-improved trails, they weren’t the landowners liability.

will they dig it out or just fence it off?

Most crashes i’ve seen or heard about have been on the berms. Riders over shooting the ends or the lips.
Shame as it was good little spot to session.
Trouble really is a lot of people watch others going down it and making it look quite easy, then they try and all goes wrong.

For all those who want to “legalise” (not that its technically illegal) riding on footpaths take note. As soon as you kick the sleeping dog it will bite you.

Land owners, councils and any other group you can identify will want to distance themselves from liability – so make it legal you will end up making it sanitised.

I know, just look at how the council have removed all those loose rocks off the rangers path on Snowdon

It’s a nonsense argument, S30 of the ’68 act specifically removes any duty to make bridleways suitable for bike use, the same would clearly apply to any relaxation of current footpath legislation.

It’s about compliance with the occupiers Liability Act 1984. Where owners, occupiers of buildings/land have duty of care to visitors and uninvited guests. that’s why trails are waymarked with clear signage about the difficulty and say things like for competent mtber’s only wear a helmet/body armour use a good quality MTB (as appropriate for the trail) this is usually considered sufficient to cover off the duty under OLA 1984. as those trails do not appear to sanctioned or official in any way; they have been closed.

doesn’t mean the local MTB community cannot lobby for official graded, marked and sign jump trails to be opened; but land owners are (rightly) nervous about this sort of thing.

You can get some decent air on Red 25, but you can get to Jump Gully well before you go near that.

As somebody mentioned before, there are step downs and doubles on blue if you look hard enough* so I think the comment about it just concentrating the incidents is valid.

I suspect they will fill it in with some spoil from all those giant pipes they have been laying.

*obviously, being the mincing old duffer I am, I have never looked

Unless they destroy/flatten the jumps, I think people will still attempt to ride them. They are hardly going to send police officers down to make sure people are abiding to the signs/fences.

I’m personally gutted about this. It’s such a loss. It’s sad to see that again it comes down to money/legal aspects as to why something that so many enjoy should be got rid of.

I know it’s easy to say when you haven’t had an accident, but I genuinely could never sue someone over an accident I had in the woods riding my bike. I just can’t understand people that expect to be sponsored having had an accident in this way. It’s a horrible culture that we have to live with.

Had to call 999 for pranged folk twice there. I think one was just unlucky, the second was an idiot. Mid, to late forties man, following his 13 year old son down the harder line. Saw him go vertically up, almost comically rotate, and then a scream followed by silence. He’d come down pretty hard on the small of his back, and couldn’t get up.

His wife didn’t drive, so couldn’t come to get him. He was down from London for the day, so no way to get home short of an ambulance ride. Poor bastard, but he really should have respected the trail.

I’ll miss the gully. It was a great option for when you didn’t want to do a full Red lap, but wanted to mess about on the bike. I wish there was a way to keep it, and I hope we can either keep it, or get a decent alternative that’s safer, or discourages people from having a go without paying heed to the consequences.

I wonder if there would be the same number of accidents if there was a mandatory drop at the beginning, like S2A at Aston Hill has? I reckon people look at the jumps, think it’s rollable and either misjudge their entry speed, or completely get their technique wrong and crash. A drop off would hopefully act as a decent filter for those who’ve got no business attempting it? Experienced riders would probably not be inclined to sue if they came a cropper I reckon.

This would appear to be the common sense approach, but when riding at Swinley was allowed but informal Crown Estates found themselves being sued for damages by people who fell off (I think one pay out was in the region of £50k)

This. On what basis is someone able to sue them.

If this is the application of the law, then the law is an ass.

I genuinely could never sue someone over an accident I had in the woods riding my bike.

Hmm, what if there was a trail that looked decent but the landowner had decided to put a big blind gap in the middle?

That would be considered a silly thing to do, and invite accidents – no?

@dk I think you’ve hit on the issues, it’s too accessible / well known and to get any air you have to try very hard / go nuts speed wise hence the crashes. The various bigger jumps / areas in the Surrey Hills are either hidden or more obviously “big” so people don’t even attempt them.

Regarding litigation even if you don’t sue your widow / wife / girlfriend / parents might do so.

What’s happened in Swinley backs up my comments each time we discuss jumps built on we’ll known trails in the Surrey Hills, they are tempting fate that the trail will be shut. Build jumps in out of the way areas or somewhere else or just take the time to find the existing hidden jump areas.

curiousyellow – Member
I wonder if there would be the same number of accidents if there was a mandatory drop at the beginning, like S2A at Aston Hill has?

The qualifier woodwork drop on Vicious Valley at BPW has had many OTB on it. Seen people do that myself as they just roll off the end. I’ve heard talk of it being filled in because of that.

Aston has had ladder rolls added to some of the big drops on S2A just in case of incidents, though does give me the balls to actually drop them now just knowing there’s that safety net 😀 . The initial qualifier is still there and just about right size really to make people think. Again though, S2A I suspect is the most popular trail there so more accidents are probably logged on it. Was there the other week and many just session S2A all day and don’t touch the rest.

Double whammy – first swegways and now this !

This sort of thing is becoming a joke, the person holding the handlebars should be held responsible for crashing not the landowner 🙄

That would be like me driving my car into the side of somebodys house then suing the homeowner for putting it there 😆 The sooner people are made accountable for their own actions & the culture of people suing because of their own stupidity/lack of common sense is stopped the better.

From what I’ve heard, CE insurance has taken an interest in Swinley since the unfortunate incident in which a guy lost his life. Now insurance aware of gully which they will class as high risk, they’re going to put a stop to it.
They’re not in a position to build the designated freeride area which had been planned, which would have the necessary disclaimers and qualifiers to cover them insurance wise.

Fingers crossed it gets resolved. The gully was a great place to work on skills in an easy and safe environment.

That would be like me driving my car into the side of somebodys house then suing the homeowner for putting it there

Hmm not quite. Imagine say, driving around a blind bend on an NSL rural B road and finding a traffic calming chicane in the middle of the road.

You might be justified in feeling aggreived that it was there because it’s not expected. People would be crashing and falling over themselves to sue the council. The difference is that on MTB routes there’s not really a commonly accepted set of expectations. We know what to do in these situations, but a lot of people wouldn’t – see above examples. It’s clearly happening.

I’m not sure if many judges would award damages to the guy who crashed in curiousyellow’s post, but the insurance company has to be over-cautious, and the CE has to do what the insurance company says.

will they dig it out or just fence it off?

…or just erect a sign saying ‘don’t ride the jumps’? 🙄

They’re caught between the devil and deep blue sea really. If they didn’t collect data on accidents, they could be accused of not having proper oversight of activities on their land. But, having identified this as a ‘blackspot’, any failure to take reasonable steps to mitigate the risk could be costly for them.

It will be interesting to see whether ‘reasonable steps’ include bulldozing the entire line or just putting a fence across the entrance and a sign telling folk not to ride it.

JEngledow – Member

will they dig it out or just fence it off?

…or just erect a sign saying ‘don’t ride the jumps’? [/quote]

It’s being flattened right now. Digger is already in there 🙁

It’s being flattened right now. Digger is already in there

😥

EDIT: Just seen this pic on faceache:

I followed a dude through the jump gulley, he couldn’t ride for toffee and crashed harder than I’ve ever seen in real life. He was out cold for 3 minutes and was clearly suffering for quite some time after. just because jumps are ‘rollable’ doesn’t stop them from having potential for serious injury. He had a go pro on his bike too, would have made for traumatising viewing as he was making all sorts of noise.

Seems a shame to close the gulley though.

:O There’s room for a pump track in there now…

This is a shame. I’ve had at least 2 inches of air on those jumps, several times.

Safety first.

Say it gets rebuilt – as it’s clearly not the same set of jumps, and therefore has a clean slate in terms of accidents, can they just come back in and flatten it all again?