Updated: If you’ve ridden the Borrowdale Bash, your trail needs you!

I will certainly drop him an email – I rode that trail as one of my first few rides (being a Penrith boy) back in 1989 or 1990. I am not sure I have photo of that bit though 🙁

I have since ridden the loop half a dozen times through the 1990’s.

We rode that in June last year. We met several walkers and they were all friendly and seemingly had no objection to our presence.

I don’t understand the reasoning behind these complaints. Is it because of perceived erosion, or because a few walkers feel intimidated by people on bikes?

I think one of the challenges with any large organisation, such as the NT, is that views and opinions will vary regionally or locally. In the Peak District the NT have opened up a number of permissive bridleways at their Longshaw Property/Land and also along Curbar / Froggat edge in conjunction with a number of other bodies.

But pop over to Lyme Park and I hear they’re pretty anti-bike.

What they need is an effective access lead on a national level. They review ROW across their land and make decisions. That way you ensure a consistent approach. So before banging up no cycling signs the access lead is consulted. The role could even pivot and look at opening up additional access.

Cards on the table I’m a NT member, purely because it makes financial sense regarding car parking in the Peak District and by the coast.

That being said my view is don’t be a dick and it’s better to seek forgiveness than ask permission.

Really sad to see this. As a Keswick resident I’ve cycled this lots in recent years and never had anything but friendliness from other users.

For those that haven’t ridden it the route is a steep and sustained but rideable climb before a cracking descent. It has seen an increase in the number of bikes using it in recent years with ebikes making light work of the climb.

Hopefully this campaign will prove successful.

The irony will be that the walkers who complain about MTBer’s on the trail, will be the same who will complain about cyclists on the road “holding them up” in their oversized wankpanzers on their way to their walk, you can’t win 🙄 I have noticed in general that with more people riding off road, gravel, MTB, e-MTB’s that there has been an increase in a lack of ettiquette when riding. It is simple Slow Down, Be Nice & Say Hi don’t give other user groups any ammunition 😜

All it needs is a couple of influential walkers – ones who’ve been NT Members for decades, perhaps large-scale donors and NT will fall over themselves to appease them.

The problem is less the actual designation of the trail and more that it comes in at Ashness Bridge which is a massive honeypot so there’s invariably crowds of walkers around the place.

Ashness Bridge also has a fair number of oversized wankpanzers trying to negotiate a bridge that’s 0.4″ wider than their wing mirrors.

There’s an element of that. Certainly within “estate” NT property (Chatsworth, Lyme Park, Tatton Park etc) cycling is very much tolerated if it’s on roads and forbidden elsewhere unless there’s some out of the way gravel track around the edge.

It’s a difficult call – on the one had they have at times made some reasonably positive noises about better cycling provision and they do understand that having massive queues of cars all around their properties isn’t a great look but it’s invariably shot down by the NIMBYs who will raise concerns about people / baby robins being mown down by rampaging hordes of XTreme MTBers.

However, cyclists do stop at the NT cafe and buy lots of food… Out on the moor though, there’s not really any benefit to the NT so they care a lot less about letting people access it by bike.

Im not a resident of the Lakes but im there once a month riding as a treat from Saddleworth . Ive ridden the Bash far to many times including Walla, Warnscale RiggBeck and almost everything in between. In the last 8 years I can safely say only once I have I ever been greeted but the “you shouldn’t be up here with a bike ” That was on the top of Old Man after a 60 minutes shoulder on a mild Tuesday morning and after the a smile and wave good bye alas well in the world again. Apart from that, over the 1000+ miles ive done up there Im almost always met with “hellos mornings how dos and yaa reet ”
I think with most things in life adhere to rule one Dont be a dick.

I’ve never ridden it (but hopefully will be this year) so I can’t really help. But I do have two questions on the this:

1. Is that route that Hannah put up an actual official footpath? Reason I say this, is when I look on the OS map App, that solid red line to show the route is not following any marked route on the OS map in the 1:50k scale, which looks like the scale shown in the picture Hannah put up. Then when I zoom in to the 1:25k scale it appears to be following one of the black dashed lines on the OS map. Which when you read the legend, a black dashed line indicates a path but not necessarily a right of way. So is there even a right of way for it to be a footpath? So this could be one angle to go at to get it reclassified.

2. This may seem an unpopular point. But just because for over 20 years cyclists have ridden on it, why should it be reclassified as a bridleway? All that proves is for over 20 years cyclists have failed to respect the access. It doesn’t prove they have a right to ride there.

Now before I get flamed for this point, I often ride on the odd footpath and I would like to see all footpaths become reclassified as bridleways to allow cycling on them all.

But my concern is not the cycling, but what if this proving use for over 20 years principle is used for other things (it might already and I just don’t know of it). Such as:
•dirt bikes riders proving they have ridden a particular bridleway/footpath/playing field etc. for over 20 years, do they have a right to get access rights reclassified to allow them to ride around and destroy areas where they currently shouldn’t be riding?
•cars parking illegally, if motorists proved they have always parked illegally on double yellow lines for over 20 years in the same spot, could they have double yellow lines removed?

Thats just two examples and I’m sure there are many more things it could be applied to. I’m sure someone will tell me a reason why this is not the same as the footpath-bridleway reclassification, but in theory it could be used on many more things, and not always for the better. Just a thought.

It’s not dissimilar to squatters’ rights.
Basically if a trail is classified as FP but cyclists have been riding it for 20 years without much (if any) issue, you’ve got a fair argument to say that if it hasn’t caused any problems for 20 years, why the hell are you complaining about it being an issue now?!

Of course there’s the other side that says well cyclists only ever used it occasionally or there were only very few but now there are hundreds of the buggers.

Your dirt bikes / illegal parking arguments fall down because those activities are ILLEGAL. Riding a bicycle on a FP is not technically illegal – it could constitute trespass but that is a civil offence not a criminal one – it’s just that trail classification in England and Wales is an outdated system that doesn’t actually prohibit higher rights of access, it just doesn’t necessarily recognise them.

There’s a thread here related to that:

Pushing your bike along a footpath clarification

knowing how long winded the upgrade (reclassification) to the Borowdale bash at Manesty was I think its very unlikely the walla cragg path will see a upgrade.I really hope a permissive route can be agreed to though, simply because its much safer than the road along Derwentwater to the climb up Ashness Bridge.The No cycling sign on the gate looks suspicious to me, and I feel its unlikely to be from a official source, simply because there is no other information on it.

On a side note, the NTs annual report shows the organisation donates money to itself so it can claim gift aid off the government. Some charity

As a paying member, surely I have a right to ask why they’ve changed access to part of their offering?

They havent “changed” it. They have just put signs up to remind bikers that its a footpath.

@b33k34 The trading arm of the National Trust is the National Trust Enterprise Ltd, which is owned by the National Trust. One donates profit to the other and gift aid is claimed.

The National Trust Renewable Energy Limited is another subsidiary, which would be claiming Feed in Tariffs from the Government for the renewable energy schemes they have in place (i worked for a supplier of materials for these schemes). ”It transfers its taxable profits to the Trust and Gift Aid is added to this.” So the government gives the trust money, and the trust claim gift aid on this.

See page 45 https://nt.global.ssl.fastly.net/documents/annual-report-202021.pdf

Land access rights in England and Wales are proper daft. The Scots have the right idea, and this wouldn’t be an issue if the same system applied to the rest of the UK.

Whilst I agree in principle and think Scottish access laws are fantastic they are unfortunately finding out that having very liberal access laws near to large centres of population is problematic. See the Loch Lomond area camping bans for instance.

With the much more concentrated population we have in England and arguably a generally less socially conscious/more NIMBYish DM-reading population, I think it would cause no end of trouble, sadly.

They havent “changed” it. They have just put signs up to remind bikers that its a footpath.

It sort of has changed because before there was believed to be a ‘don’t ask don’t tell’ type arrangement whereas now it’s been made clear that cycling isn’t welcomed by the landowner.

I think it’s a waste of time tbh. Just ride where you want and don’t be a dick. I also don’t think we need to worry about attracting more or sustaining current levels of tourism to the LD. It’s already frequently nightmarish and despite living nearby I often avoid it.

Having ridden it off and on for 15+ years, it’s become a lot more popular for bikes and walkers. Inevitably, some of those riders don’t behave responsibly and as bikes have become more capable, they can now rattle down the rocky descent much faster. I’ve seen groups ride the descent, at speed, not really giving much heed to walkers – who were stood still and clearly worried. Non riders often don’t realise we’re under control at speed, so assume danger. You’ve never been ‘allowed’ to ride there and the signs change little, except the potential for future claims of historical riding ‘rights’. As above, it’s not a RoW, so no classification to change.
The obvious answer is to establish a trail share/segregation, with separate FP and ‘BW’, as the trail is wide and divided enough along most of its length.
The NT in the Lakes have been pretty good to cycling, creating cycle paths and allowing riding elsewhere. The footpath around the back of Buttermere was ‘upgraded’ to BW, in spite of there being a BW further up the fell side. The gift aid thing mentioned is totally legit.

Whilst I agree in principle and think Scottish access laws are fantastic they are unfortunately finding out that having very liberal access laws near to large centres of population is problematic. See the Loch Lomond area camping bans for instance.

You have just highlighted the exception which proves the rule.

This is the only example anyone ever gives as to why Scottish-style access might not be the perfect solution (which it is).

So there was a localised problem, it was fixed with byelaws, and the Land Reform Act continues to make Scotland a shining example of liberal access legislation. What’s the problem?

That being said my view is don’t be a dick and it’s better to seek forgiveness than ask permission.

This doesn’t make sense. If you do something that requires forgiveness, then you’re likely being a dick. If you’re not being a dick then it’s better to seek permission to do something than ask for forgiveness.

If you asked to walk through our land, I’d be cool with it. If you appeared in my land randomly, I’d not be impressed.