Howard from Pedal & Spoke in Peaslake has posted news about some of the locals’ trails in the Hurtwood. Looks like they’re being ‘managed’ out of existence: https://www.facebook.com/Pedal-and-Spoke-Santa-Cruz-261199578060/

A crying shame, but I guess that’s the nature of unofficial trails on private land…

I’m amazed they have been there that long to be honest.

All sounds like a bit of a hotpot & a mess between riders & landowners.

Can’t say I blame the land owners, I wouldn’t want the crazy amount of MTBers that appear in Peaslake at the weekend cycling through my garden either….i know it’s massive and ‘garden’ is a vast understatement but the principle stands.

Can’t access Howard’s page but sounds grim especially in Evian and Amigos have gone. But it was always a sensitive area and boundaries have been pushed, so not unexpected if there is a negative reaction.

Think before you dig?

From Howard’s post:

Trails such as Area 51, bear necessities, amigos, Mile stone and Evian will all be gone. Others such as Northern, lovely legs ‘should’ be fine they said as its far enough away from Mccasllisters house.

It could be all-change. That could provide an opportunity for new, better trails… if it’s handled correctly.

The vast majority of the trails are unauthorised. As such this is no surprise. It’s very possible to build new trails on the cleared land if people chose to do that although I for one find riding in de-forested wasteland rather dull.

Things change. This is no different. When I started riding most of these trails didn’t exist and we enjoyed riding the bridleways and just playing around

Anyone know if barry knows best is a ‘trail’, as opposed to a footpath? I came round a corner on the weekend to find a rather large group of walkers stood in the middle, adamant it was a footpath. The decided not to move either, as people coming down the hill after us were discussing them being stood in the middle

TBH this happens regularly in our forest, no issues they have to manage the land. From what I see they dont destroy them. Its the machines that tracks across them but thats not the same as scrubbing them off completely. The cost would be prohibitive and pointless. Its normal forestry management damage. They will be gone in a few months. Our trails are back in use almost the moment they have gone, if not before. We all need to be tolerant and share what we have, even with walkers 😀 ok thats a step too far 😀

BKB, its not a footpath thats for sure.

Not surprised that the trails have gone, especially given how big some of the jumps had gotten and the frankly stupid levels of building on private land with little regard for the owners legal responsibility. (they were fun trails mind you..)

Having grown up there and ridden the area for 35+ years its evolved into something thats getting out of hand somewhat, with some rather large and increasingly arrogant groups of riders who do cause a lot of tension and animosity with the locals. Albeit they are in the minority, they are the ones people remember.

Frankly i am surprised anyone is still allowed to use the area.

It’s a real shame – there was a great little loop of 3 or 4 trails over there but this happens. If that’s a a genuine comment from the landowner it’s a huge opportunity.

BKB, its not a footpath thats for sure.

BKB is an “officially tolerated” trail rather than a right of way footpath/bridleway. However, it *IS* crossed at 90 degrees by a footpath about half way along the first traverse. It’s possible everyone was right.

When you get to the bottom of the trail if you turn right a bridleway takes you back up the hill fairly gently, if you turn left theres a footpath pretty much straight up the fall line after about 150m. It’s a properly challenging climb but ridable in the right conditions (not too wet, not too dry).

Oh so I’ve already done my last runs down Evian and A51, what a shame. I have some sympathy with the landowner’s POV too, as well as the trail pixies who did all the work.

Regarding walkers on BKB (have encountered same on Parklife/Yogs). My understanding is it’s access land and pedestrians can go anywhere they want, so the best strategy would be to warn them about the likelihood of bike traffic and with a view to safety, suggest another route if possible. It may well be applicable to help them with that, or check up-trail for bikes if in a blind spot or they insist on continuing.

Mass trespass of Kinder Scout here

From wikipedia:

“working class struggle for the right to roam versus the rights of the wealthy to have exclusive use of moorlands”

Not exactly the same but similar enough, area of natural beauty, building trails that are merely a track through the hills with perhaps an occasional jump.

And for working class substitute “the 99%”.

don’t build ‘features’ and there won’t be anything to destroy. creating a subtle lip with rock on top of a mound is one thing, building kickers and gaps is another.

Not exactly the same but similar enough, area of natural beauty, building trails that are merely a track through the hills with perhaps an occasional jump.

I see utterly no connection between the right to enjoy the countryside by riding my bike responsibly on paths and tracks that already exist, and the right to go out with a shovel and dig shonky jumps on someone else’s land without permission – especially where it leaves them with the legal liability if someone crashes and breaks their neck.

>the legal liability if someone crashes and breaks their neck

“Recent High Court rulings suggest that there is now a much reduced risk
of successful litigation should “invited” riders be injured as a result of their activities. There is a well established principle of “user beware” which enables other hazardous activities such as rock climbing and caving to take place on an own risk basis – with little chance of successfully suing the landowner if they fall off or get injured.”

Didn’t take me long to find this

Based on a quote from mark foster he is not particularly concerned about rider injuries as per the reasoning above but more if a rider hits a walker on his land. That said I can’t think where would that would feasibly happen on the current trails as there are very few blind areas.

Anyhoo, it’s shame, particularly about Evian. Can’t help thinking that perhaps the big jump lines are a step too far with antagonising land owners.

Id guess the landowners are probably more of the opinion that perhaps having illegal tracks that are so popular they are ‘named’ is a step too far?

^^ thats all assuming you don’t have any prior knowledge the trails were there i would assume, which the landowner on Winterfold plainly does. he has a responsibility to remove them or make them safe.

the fact is if people weren’t just blindly doing it he might be approachable to get some legal authorised trails built.

As i touched on before, if people carry on and rebuild the trails without seeking permission first, we could very well see the whole area closed down for everyone.

freddy I’d suggest there’s probably a difference, liability wise, between someone injuring themselves on a natural feature, such as a cliff, and a constructed feature that the landowner has ‘allowed’ (even if that means failed to remove).

Did you see that video a few weeks ago when a novice rider rode into a gap jump, OTB’d and was unconscious for a few minutes? Luckily I don’t think he was seriously injured .. but he was lucky. That was on Evian, one of the trails that has been trashed.

Didn’t take me long to find this

as a former board member of said organisation, I’m fully aware of said document and the cases and discussions upon which it was based, and more than happy to stand by my observations regards the liability burden created by unplanned and ungraded, unmanaged jumps built without landowner permission. I would point to your own argument being flawed by the caveat “should “invited” riders be injured” clearly not reflecting the situation you are discussing 😉

Mass trespass of Kinder Scout

An entirely different concept.

The mass trespass/ramblers were campaigning for access to the countryside, which eventually lead to more RoW, access land, etc.

It is still completely illegal to create a trail on that land.

Same applies in Scotland, you can access any trail you like, but you can’t just get your spade out and dig one, that’s the ‘responsible’ bit of responsible access.

Issues like illegal trail building on a large scale are the kind of thing that will make access campaigning harder, not easier. We can’t say “we want access to XYZ trail, we won’t do any more damage than walkers and only use it in the dry, we promise” if other groups can then turn round and say “well just look at the Surrey Hills, you built 20ft gaps on footpaths you weren’t even supposed to be on”.

I’d support a mass trespass movement.
I’d support (illegal) trail building in appropriate areas.
I’d not support illegal trail building where the landowners already repeatedly said ‘go forth and multiply’.

Stato – Foster runs around the hurtwood so would be very surprised if he didn’t know the trails were there.

It’s a shame there can’t be something done which would make it worthwhile for the landowners. Charging in the car parks or something with the funds raised reinvested into trails (horse, walking and bike) and his pet heather regeneration project. Sadly I suspect if they charge for the car park there will be a lot of people with shiny new carbon bikes dumping their cars on any verge they come across to avoid paying a couple of quid.

We can’t say “we want access to XYZ trail, we won’t do any more damage than walkers and only use it in the dry, we promise” if other groups can then turn round and say “well just look at the Surrey Hills, you built 20ft gaps on footpaths you weren’t even supposed to be on”.

Indeed – I am firmly of the opinion that Wheatons law should be the guiding principle that applies to all mountain bike access issues. Building gap jumps etc. on unauthorised trails clearly fails that test.

Did you see that video a few weeks ago when a novice rider rode into a gap jump, OTB’d and was unconscious for a few minutes? Luckily I don’t think he was seriously injured .. but he was lucky. That was on Evian, one of the trails that has been trashed.

Saw that, and first and foremost I’m glad the guy was OK, but to be fair that double has a massive chicken run next to it which is actually more on the trail line than the jump. I was struggling to work out quite how he’d managed to make such a big hash of it given it didn’t look like he even tried to jump it. The cause there was poor riding and situational awareness, man made feature or not. Most of the SH features are pretty obviously there.

Given it sounds like a logging contract I think the trail destruction is more a consequence of that anyhow.

That was on Evian, one of the trails that has been trashed.

I wasn’t aware of that – I suspect that sets the backdrop very effectively in that case.

Gotama – Member
That said I can’t think where would that would feasibly happen on the current trails as there are very few blind areas.

Yog Pots has a couple of blind corners/entry points, Summer Madness where it connects to Charlie Bronson, not forgetting the 90 degree left hander about a third of the way down SM. Even the start of BKB and Evian can be a bit blind in the height of spring/summer when the scenery is colourful.

The more I think about it, I can think of quite a few blind areas, most trails seem to have them at some point. 🙁

mattjg – Member

Did you see that video a few weeks ago when a novice rider rode into a gap jump, OTB’d and was unconscious for a few minutes? Luckily I don’t think he was seriously injured .. but he was lucky. That was on Evian, one of the trails that has been trashed.

I’m still confused as to how he ended up on that line as it’s easier to take the chicken line (as I do). I can only assume he thought the jump was simply a single lip and not a gap and then changed his mind hence his ‘angle of attack’.

Anyways, sad news, I really enjoy Bear Necessities and Area 51, more so than the other trails on Winterfold. 🙁

I don’t understand the connection between the unsanctioned trails and the landowner being worried about a MTBer hitting someone walking? Isn’t that much more likely to happen on an existing bridleway or fireroad?

> I’m still confused as to how he ended up on that line as it’s easier to take the chicken line (as I do).

> I was struggling to work out quite how he’d managed to make such a big hash of it

Judging by his bike & clothing, I suspect the issue was inexperience/ignorance, rather than an informed bad choice as such. I’m guessing he followed a ‘bike trail’ from the road on the assumption the straight (i.e. default) line was OK to ride. If I had a landowner hat on, that would be a concern certainly.

Anyhoo, it’s shame, particularly about Evian. Can’t help thinking that perhaps the big jump lines are a step too far with antagonising land owners.

The thing is, there are plenty of other big jump lines there, and a bit of spade work could have extended them further.

Instead, they chose to build one right next to one of the most popular trails in the area, and in full sight of the bridleway running up the small valley in the middle. It was hardly subtle.

I’m sure new trails will come in time.

Does anyone know if Secret Santa is still in use? Had some friends ride it a few weeks ago & they bumped into a certain Mr McAllister half way down it, asking them to leave…

> I would point to your own argument being flawed by the caveat “should “invited” riders be injured” clearly not reflecting the situation you are discussing

I’m afraid I wont be convinced until I can read of a successful case of a mountain biker or someone on his behalf successfully suing a land owner for getting injured on a jump built in these circumstances.

Perhaps I am a leftie, but I am not that sympathetic to millionaire land owners.

mattjg – Member

Judging by his bike & clothing, I suspect the issue was inexperience/ignorance, rather than an informed bad choice as such. I’m guessing he followed a ‘bike trail’ from the road on the assumption the straight (i.e. default) line was OK to ride. If I had a landowner hat on, that would be a concern certainly.

As would I to be honest. I think there have been a few accidents on Evian over the years. Apparently early this year someone broke their collarbone at the bomb hole on Evian which led to the entry lip being smoothed out/rounded. Of course that could just be bollocks but if I’ve heard it then others have too.

Hob Nob

Does anyone know if Secret Santa is still in use? Had some friends ride it a few weeks ago & they bumped into a certain Mr McAllister half way down it, asking them to leave…

I did Secret Santa last Thursday and it was rideable for its full length. It’s a lovely trail too, only found it 6 weeks ago after months of looking. 🙁

As would I to be honest. I think there have been a few accidents on Evian over the years. Apparently early this year someone broke their collarbone at the bomb hole on Evian which led to the entry lip being smoothed out/rounded. Of course that could just be bollocks but if I’ve heard it then others have too.

There was a broken ankle in the summer also I think (ouch). And more importantly my mate cracked his Lynskey on that drop!! This madness has to stop!!

A novice rider probably didn’t even know what a gap jump is. You could definitely hurt yourself on Evian eg at the bomb hole, I nearly concussed myself on the original summer lightening when I head butted a tree after failing to make a corner.

A lot of the Surrey Hills are access land which means walkers and bikers can go where they want. A walker has just as much right to walk up a “trail” as a biker has to ride down it.

There is a logic that building trails on land cleared by forestry means it’s less likely to be messed with again.

simons_nicolai-uk – Member
BKB is an “officially tolerated” trail

While locals may tolerate it, it’s official in every sense. It’s been officially funded. Same goes for Yoghurt Pots and Summer Lightning. They’re the only trails in Surrey Hills that are official, and approved by land owners and council.

The footpath issue might be people looking on Google and seeing a marked path with BKB named on it. It isn’t it’s a marked bike trail that someone has submitted to Google. Same with Open Street Map.

If anyone says it’s a footpath, present them with an OS map and ask them to point it out.

Yog Pots have come across walkers, including an entire family just round a corner at speed, just standing around with their dog!

All on Hurtwood land though, inc these two are open access unless there is a sign up saying otherwise. That’s part of the unique deal with the Hurtwood. Even parts of Winterfold that are part of Hurtwood includes the likes of Evian means they’re open access. Free to walk or ride on it. However digging still remains a criminal damage offence.

Map of Hurtwood areas if anyone’s interested.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=https%3A%2F%2Ffriendsofthehurtwood.co.uk%2Ffiles%2F19%2FMaps%2F27%2FMap_of_the_Hurtwood_with_Carparks_.pdf%3Ftoken%3Dd7a70c5291b1a7936ef54cf5709fe759&embedded=true

🙁

But others will come to replace them.

GB

jambalaya – Member

A novice rider probably didn’t even know what a gap jump is. You could definitely hurt yourself on Evian eg at the bomb hole, I nearly concussed myself on the original summer lightening when I head butted a tree after failing to make a corner.

Agreed, I’ve had a few spills myself down there. Clipped a rock on Evian and sprained my wrist, took one of the kickers on BKB but ran out of talent before the chicane corner, stacked it into a tree after the bomb hole on Summer Madness (that one was particularly sobering as I was by myself and it was late on a Sunday evening).

Judging by his bike & clothing, I suspect the issue was inexperience/ignorance, rather than an informed bad choice as such. I’m guessing he followed a ‘bike trail’ from the road on the assumption the straight (i.e. default) line was OK to ride. If I had a landowner hat on, that would be a concern certainly.

I get your point, but as both if us said, the jump is not the default line there, you have to intentionally keep right to hit it, and it’s pretty obvious it’s a gap too.

Any how’s it gone now sadly.

the jump is not the default line there, you have to intentionally keep right to hit it, and it’s pretty obvious it’s a gap too.

I think that we fall in to the point there of ‘that’s fine if you know it’ but we have to realise that in a diverse and growing sport, not everybody will, and where you have a network of unofficial, semi-official and official trails, allied with both wildcat and organised/permitted building, with no way for the rider (who may be a stranger to the area or a novice) to know which is which, and in the absence of any formal waymarking, grading or inspection regime – Put all those together, and you have the potential for a number of pretty big issues. Essentially that’s very close to the position CE at Swinley were in a couple of years ago, and the number of compensation payouts resulting (along with NE concerns over SPA bird species) were what led to the massive rethink that saw the current red and blue trails built.

I think I’ll miss evian the most. At least my last run down there was a good one- dry conditions, on my own with a clear run, absolutely hammering to try to catch a group. Shame