Rushup Edge – update now updated

by 6

Workmen

Here’s the latest reply to the questions we asked Derbyshire County Council

1) Was the route monitored to measure a rate of deterioration? It is many users opinion that having eroded to bedrock the route had been stable for many years.

We’ve been aware of the slow deterioration of the track over many years. Given its current condition, we felt  repairs were needed to avoid the potential risk of injury as well as to make the route easier to use for some user groups who currently would be unable to use it. 

2) I notice that you mention making the route “safe” several times in both the replies we’ve received . Could you expand on how the route was assessed to be dangerous and how you’ve risk assessed it will be safer as a result of your works?

The county council has a legal duty to maintain this route and make sure it can be used by all types of users including walkers, cyclists and horse riders. As with any maintenance work we do, we consider the wants and needs of all user groups and we will keep features favoured by cyclists where it’s possible to do so. But clearly the rocky outcrops in this particular area prevent some users entitled to use the route from doing so safely and so the work we’re doing is designed to make it accessible to all users.

3)  “Our approach ties in very well with the guiding principles which are to ensure that all users entitled to use this route can do so in the knowledge that the route is safe.” Below are the principles I was referring to, could you explain where it refers to routes being “safe” and what you consider this to mean?

The ‘guiding principles’ on risk control state “You must take all reasonable steps to ensure the safety of visitors.” One of the ‘fundamental’ points highlighted states “Where activities conflict, you might have to restrict one person’s freedom for the benefit of others.” We know we’re never going to be able to please everyone. Mountain bikers like the challenge of rockier routes but in this particular area some users would be prevented from using the route at all.  

We’ve also had another cut’n’paste email from Councillor Andy Botham, as follows:

There has been a lot of interest in the work we’ve been doing in the area and we’ve updated our website at www.derbyshire.gov.uk/chapelgate to address the questions and points raised.

As I’ve said previously, we can’t please everyone. We’ve got a legal duty to maintain the routes we look after to make sure they can be used by everyone entitled to do so. We understand that this will ultimately mean that some people will not be happy with the work we’re doing. But I’d like to reassure you that we do consider all user groups when we’re carrying out maintenance work and we do try to keep features favoured by cyclists where it’s possible to do so.

I’d also like to reassure you that we’re always happy to hear from countryside users.

We’ve met with interested groups in the past to discuss various issues and would advise any group, as we have in the past, to get involved through local access forums as these are the best way to raise any issues you might have. Details are available at www.derbyshire.gov.uk/LAF

However, I have asked officers to make contact with user groups that got in touch with us about Chapel Gate so that we can discuss some of the issues further.

I really do think his PR/press office people should stop him from saying things like “we can’t please everyone” – it’s tantamount to saying “stuff you”… but the last line at least sounds vaguely promising, while at the same time being unpromisingly vague.

For our news stories on the issue click here.

For up-to-the-minute details keep an eye on our forum here.

Singletrack Weekly Word

Sports Newsletter of the Year finalist at the Publisher Newsletter Awards 2024. Find out why our newsletter is different and give it a go.

Barney Marsh takes the word ‘career’ literally, veering wildly across the road of his life, as thoroughly in control as a goldfish on the dashboard of a motorhome. He’s been, with varying degrees of success, a scientist, teacher, shop assistant, binman and, for one memorable day, a hospital laundry worker. These days, he’s a dad, husband, guitarist, and writer, also with varying degrees of success. He sometimes takes photographs. Some of them are acceptable. Occasionally he rides bikes to cast the rest of his life into sharp relief. Or just to ride through puddles. Sometimes he writes about them. Bikes, not puddles. He is a writer of rongs, a stealer of souls and a polisher of turds. He isn’t nearly as clever or as funny as he thinks he is.

More posts from Barney

Comments (6)

    if thier so keen to repair roads/lanes bridleways.. why has bamford clough been closed to all traffic for a year..

    The way roads and byways are catagorised as needing repair is a mystery – we just need to look at derbyshires roads – has anyone contacted the national park legal department?

    Disingenuous to say “some people will not be happy with the work”. The evidence of the many complaints is that the majority are unhappy with it. Reductio ad absurdum: their current design still excludes disabled users who are “entitled” to use it safely. That goal is a fallacy; usability/safety does not always trump all other factors.

    They just want multi user lanes. The fact they have put down a path unusable by most is an inconvenience for them as far as they are concerned. They’ll continue to do it but change how they do it 🙁 they’ll put tunnels thru the hills next!!?) they need stopping 🙁

    “The county council has a legal duty to … make sure it can be used by all types of users including walkers, cyclists and horse riders.”
    Is this even true? If it is it would imply every bridleway has to be usable by all cyclists and horse riders, however unskilled…

    “But clearly the rocky outcrops in this particular area prevent some users entitled to use the route from doing so safely and so the work we’re doing is designed to make it accessible to all users.”

    Which users? I mean, which users were prevented form using this bridlepath safely because of those bed rock features?

    Until they answer that question, how can they show the effectiveness and appropriateness of the new surface? How will they show that they’ve made it safer for those users?

Comments Closed