[Closed] 80 years since the Kinder Scout mass tresspass- when will bikes do the same?

i'd certainly get involved in one, but i poach them now anyway. I believe that if you ride carefully and respectfully we can all get along.

Certainly round here there are miles of footpaths rarely walked as they're too far from a population base to be within dog walking distance, these to me are ideal candidates for reclassification.

I just ride responsibly. Wherever I like. 😉

To clarify though, there are some BW's that I won't go on at busy times or when they're muddy cos even though I have every right to be on them, the hassle isn't worth it, either from me having to slow down/stop for hordes of walkers/horse riders or because conditions mean the trail will cut up.

There are some FP's round here that are well worth riding though and so long as it's sufficiently quiet, I'll do just that.

The further you are from "civilisation" the fewer problems you have. There's a high remote FP in the Lakes which I love and the few walkers I've ever seen up there have without fail been very polite and friendly. Once out there you get the serious outdoors people who know that you're just out there to get the same outdoors buzz as they are so they don't care about how you got there!

"I just ride responsibly. Wherever I like."

This. But if things kick-off against MTBing at any point them I'm with you.

400 bikes riding on sensitive moorland sends out a bad message IMO.

Best way forward:

A) Ride footpaths responsibly every day
B) Don't be a dick.
C) if stopped, explain how walkers got access through trespass
D) talk to your local RoW about improving access
E) talk to your MP about Scottish style access for all of UK
F) tell CTC you'll join if they take access campaigning seriously

The best way forward is for bikes on paths to be seen as normal, not a one off trespass that could backfire badly.

a one off trespass that could backfire badly.

I fear this is what would happen today. The nation wouldn't get behind it like they could with walkers.

I just don't understand why people are so against the idea of people having a lovely Sunday afternoon out on their push bikes. I agree completely about the more serious walkers being a lot more tolerant.

I just ride responsibly. Wherever I like.

This.

Having moved down from Scotland to the Peak 8 months ago I've snapped and am getting really fed up with the nonsense of the rights of way laws down here.

Just ignore them then.

Certainly not everyone in the same place, that would come right back at the bikers. What little research there has been has show walkers encountering bikers more mellows any strong negative feelings they may (apart from the miserable ones who like hating).

Gentle increase in exposure is the way to go for now imo.

It is very silly, I work in a TIC in the Dales, and I can't tell people where the good biking is... So all visitors to the area have to do the same old loop that's 50% road... #yawn

To answer the OPs question - never

We're too bothered about breaking rules and offending anyone these days

as Dave

I 'sensible cheeky' my way all over the home counties, very few problems, esp with 'working' landpeople, always slow down, hallo, smile, thank you.

Sad to say 'ramblers' are the worst, they truly are, however I think it's important to be polite and calm, and 'C) if stopped, explain how walkers got access through trespass' - I also point out that of all paths there are that only about 21% are legal to cycle so I suggest that this % should be upped, and that I am upping it on my own behalf.

Ride what you want but just remember to be respectful to the trail and everyone you meet.

I don't think you can really compare the Kinder Trespass and those who took part in it at that period in history to the current day - I think it's slightly offensive to make the comparison. A hoard of beer bellied middle class 'me me me' types isn't going to gain much public sympathy - there wouldn't a car park big enough in the Peak to cope with all the Audis!

The wonderful irony of it all is ramblers have campaigned for total access and now have "right to roam" pretty much anywhere unless there are very good reasons why they shouldn't be there (eg heavy machinery moving around) but they still stick to the same few % of paths.

Even in the Peak District, I know I can still find some really nice quiet trails becasue all the bloody walkers have gone to the same honeypot areas!

Go and make use of your right to roam! Actually, on second thoughts, don't. Just stay where you are, it means I can ride in relative peace and quiet. 😉

I live in east lancs. if we rode on bridle way, not footpaths, we'd never be able to string a decent ride together. I've been riding footpaths all day today. We're courteous and polite to the walkers, who are the same in return. Never an issue.

The only time you get grief is in the lakes, where you get the typical red socks who drive there to walk from the outdoor shop, where they've bought a new fleece, to the cafe for tea and cakes. **** 'em!!!

Mountain bikers and their over developed sense of entitlement get on my wick.

I've bought a mountain bike, so I can ride it where ever I want to and anyone who says otherwise is wrong....

Crikey, i deny myself really good riding quiet often on the grounds trail conditions, diplomacy, not making a scene, knowing i'll leave tyre marks and anger the red socks (who exist in large numbers round here). A very large chunk (most?) bridleways in Nidderdale are tarmac, track, or peat bog and impassible for over the half the year - While many 'footpaths' are old horse and cart tracks, paved, and have packhorse bridges on 'em. It's not a consistent system, its not an up to date system, its not really a system. It was pot luck of the time. Now it takes years and huge effort to upgrade to a bridleway.

I ride where ever I like (in a considered manner). I think a mass trespass would probably be a negative for access as a whole. At present I don't feel restricted from any trails in Northumberland.

Sorry, but this is a #firstworldproblem par excellence.

The damage caused to sensitive natural areas by bikes is on the increase, largely because people are seeking out bigger, more gnarly stuff to ride. Make access more open to mountain bikes and that damage will increase.

..and once the genie is out of the bottle, it'll get worse and worse.

I wouldn't advocate a Scottish style system (ride anywhere) in England , as its too small and your prediction could come true. But riding on footpaths would not greatly increase footpath erosion as riding typically creates a thiner footprint (big problem for footpaths is pathwidening), and the impact of bike specific erosion patterns would be diluted. Then if specific spots do suffer badly I'm sure measures can be brough in to protect those areas.

The damage caused to sensitive natural areas by bikes is on the increase, largely because people are seeking out bigger, more gnarly stuff to ride.

Don't really see a problem. Typically in Scotland where walkers and cyclists can go where they want the "damage" consists of a path a few feet wide following the contours of the land with miles of untouched land on either side. Almost everyone follows existing routes.

The tracks bulldozed by estates for shooting, forestry, or windfarm. access are the real eyesores. Open access works here. The only reason there isn't access in England is because of the landowner lobby.

If you really want to do it, get the horse riders onside. A mass trespass by riders+bikers would probably work, riders alone? I doubt it.

The difference is the pressure of people. In Scotland there are fewer people and more land, in England, the few 'honeypot' areas, like the Peak district would be battered very quickly.

I see the numptiness of the laws, I appreciate the contradictions, but there was a time when people who used the countryside did so with the view that they were helping to conserve and protect it.

Now the view is 'I want to ride my bicycle and so I will and I don't care what damage it does'.

Now the view is 'I want to ride my bicycle and so I will and I don't care what damage it does'.

On the contrary, I ride my bike where it WON'T cause damage. If that means avoiding the boggy mess of a bridleway and riding on a better surfaced footpath then so be it.

Luke - me, si, and Ian are doing one on Tuesday night from hope at 7:30 should you fancy coming?

I find this strange the Peak distinct has been Quarryed by man for years, bikes spread over a bigger area will mean less damage on the trails.Not going to get tons more people on mountain bikes beacause you can go anywhere.Mountain bikes sales have dropped alot in the last two years.
You go up Stanage edge all those millers wheels dumped there old age fly tipping.
Theres alot of the Peaks to me looks an eyesore.

[i]Now the view is 'I want to ride my bicycle and so I will and I don't care what damage it does'.[/i]

I'm not so sure.

Locally the general consensus is to avoid damage on sensitive easily damaged moorland bridleways by riding rocky footpaths instead. Opening the RoW network means you can ride more responsibly by offering more choice.

As a mtber, walker, mountaineer I see the perspective of all sides.
If I'm out for a walk I;m doing it in part for peace and quiet and to enjoy nature. An mtber ragging past me kind of ruins that.
On that basis I think mtbers should be grateful for the access we do have and respect the ROW laws as they stand. Leave the footpaths for walkers, their dogs and kids so they can wander somewhere in peace and no danger. I don't believe we have an entitlement to ride where we want, that's rather a selfish view IMO
Bikes also cause a chunk of damage, especially where standing water creates puddles, quite a few of the trails in Surrey Hills - BKB/Orange Clawhammer for e.g. are getting wrecked (widened, permanent mud) because riders aren't sensitive to the damage we're doing and until MTB as a community can prove we care about the damage we do, I don't think we can claim the right to an expanded access network.
One issue that does counter this however, is that since MTBing has grown, other than trail centres, our access has not grown at all, in terms of miles of trail available to us. This has probably led to some of the damage, more riders over the same trails = more erosion. If we were spread over a wider area then maybe the damage would be less.

I feel more isolated from nature on my bike than I do when I;m walking, and I think that means MTBers can have a more distant, less sensitive relationship with the areas we ride in. Until that changes, I believe we have no right to demand additional access. We'll just give ourselves a bad name by knackering everywhere we ride...

I live in the country and its the walkers who see doing more damage, it was walkers were persisting in walking all over the shop because they "had the right" during F&M, its walkers now in their massive bloody gangs walk four across who are causing much increased erosion and path widening. Paths [i]are[/i] erosion, that's what a path is, erosion of top soil and plant life. No-ones going to go cycling across access land bog/moor etc, its not fun, its bloody horrible, they will follow footpaths. Case in point - Ilkley Moor, Bradford council have allowed cycling all over the moor, but the cyclists are just riding the paths, and they avoid them when its muddy, they don't have to, they choose to.

This can work.

How does the damage done by mountain bikers in the Surrey Hills, compare to the impact of roads, agriculture, forestry, industry, towns, power lines, rail tracks etc etc.

You know just for a bit of perspective.

I found in Scotland trail erosion is noticeably less- if a trail is wet enough to be damaged it's not fun to ride so you'd ride elsewhere because there were so many trails available.

I've snapped and am getting really fed up with the nonsense of the rights of way laws down here.

snapped in what way? where in the peaks do you live to have snapped?

As a mtber, walker, mountaineer I see the perspective of all sides.
If I'm out for a walk I;m doing it in part for peace and quiet and to enjoy nature. An mtber ragging past me kind of ruins that.

Its strange but very true that! Ditto, when I am on a bike motorbikes and 4x4 off-roaders get on my nerves 😉

On that basis I think mtbers should be grateful for the access we do have and respect the ROW laws as they stand. Leave the footpaths for walkers, their dogs and kids so they can wander somewhere in peace and no danger. I don't believe we have an entitlement to ride where we want, that's rather a selfish view IMO

+1

Bikes also cause a chunk of damage, especially where standing water creates puddles, quite a few of the trails in Surrey Hills - BKB/Orange Clawhammer for e.g. are getting wrecked (widened, permanent mud) because riders aren't sensitive to the damage we're doing and until MTB as a community can prove we care about the damage we do, I don't think we can claim the right to an expanded access network.

-1,

For the reported levels of usage ( I avoid these areas at the weekend) and growing popularity of mtb, I am amazed at how little erosion there is especially given the lack of consideration "some" give to wet conditions. How wide is Clawhammer given the usage? Compare that with bridleways on Blackheath???? Even BKB is hardly an eyesore and what 80cm wide before the berms.

How does the damage done by mountain bikers in the Surrey Hills, compare to the impact of roads, agriculture, forestry, industry, towns, power lines, rail tracks etc etc.

You know just for a bit of perspective.

it doesn't compare, not in the slightest. You're totally right.

My point was that I don't think we have the right to do more damage than we do already, by riding on footpaths...

BKB is only 80cm before the (old) berms because we narrowed it last week...! It was getting close to 2 meters
BKB used to be far narrower 5+ years ago, and Clawhammer never seems to dry out since it got popular.
I'm just using Surrey Hills as an example because it's what I know, in the scheme of things, you're right, they're not the worst damage in the world

someone tweeted this t other day

http://www.cheekytrails.co.uk/

“@RamblersGB: Forgive us our trespassers #kinder80: http://bit.ly/HSVmdM” < Ramblers support trespass as way of improving access. Get riding

now basically not sure if they were saying "we" ramblers will now trespass or bikers but if its ramblers unfortunately they can **** right off as it smacks slightly of hipocrisy

but there was a time when people who used the countryside did so with the view that they were helping to conserve and protect it.

You've not spent much time around farmers, then? Any past "respect" for the countryside is more due to lack of access / distance, than any real desire not to change it.

In Scotland there are fewer people and more land,

The access laws that Scots enjoy apply to the populous Central Belt where they mostly live, not just The Highlands and Borders.

It might be interesting if a large group of mountain bikers joined the mass-trespass celebration walks. If the ramblers kicked-off it would get press attention and highlight the stupidity of the current classification system.

An mtber ragging past me kind of ruins that.

Only the insensitive "rag" past walkers. Most will slow down and wait to be let past.

I think there are a number of reasons why we've still not got universal/updated access rights and it's a real shame. I think for a long time mountain biking has revelled in being a 'minority' sport and that we quite enjoy being a bit less mainstream than rambling and hillwalking. For this reason we've never really embraced organisations (like CTC etc) and so there's never been a big organised push for updated access.

I do find though that 'ramblers' and land owners' perception of mountain bikers is a big problem. I often find that ramblers I meet on footpaths are grumpy and angry at me because they expect me to be an aggressive ignorant young man who's going to zoom past and run over their dog and grandchild. Once I stop and talk to them and they realise that I'm actually quite a polite and pleasant young lady (!) they feel embarrassed about being angry at someone who was just out to have a nice day in the hills. It's all about changing peoples stupid preconceptions.

I like the current ridiculous access laws. I dread the improbable day when bikes can ride footpaths legally and suddenly all my favourite local trails are over-run by fat wannabe mtb life-stylers brandishing copies of 'Dark Peak - The New Trails' and MBR's latest Peak Footpath Supplement.

I'm with Crayzlegs on a lot of this. And Dave. I'm not telling anyone else what they should or shouldn't do, but ride responsibly with a smile on your face and treat people well and considerately and ime you'll have no problems footpaths, bridleways or whatever.

The biggest problems for trail damage are -

Water
People widening the trail by riding / walking round tricky or muddy bits
Grippy boots / running shoes / tyres
Dragging of brakes / skidding - may not cause that much damage per se but is a very obvious indicator that a bike was there and suggests 'yobbish' behaviour.
Pedal strikes / chainring bashes don't look good (but don't do any real harm)

I can understand the tranquil / mindless state you can get in to just walking along, and a bike 'ragging past' may surprise you, but exactly the same shock gets inflicted when you run past someone so its not always about RoW.

However torn up the trail gets doesn't really affect your enjoyment of the outdoors, it just means that excessive erosion makes some sections of walking need a bit more concentration or you get muddier. If you walk along Kinder Scout which is pretty much the soul reserve of walkers (although I've seen a few tyre trails) you'll see quite quickly the affect that walkers have on the trails, particularly on the southern edge running from Grindsbrook Naze to Jacob's ladder. The state of the path will never ruin your enjoyment of being where you are, however obnoxious behaviour by others will whether they be walkers, runners, bikers or other.

If we weren't restricted to the bridleweays we may well get less congestion at those popular spots as we'd have other places to go to, we may also find less conflict because the trails that bikers seek out that are technical may be less appealing to walkers and vice versa.

We do need to be aware though that some people are very anti MTB and see things in black and white, however as long as we are courteous, don't ride obnoxiously in big groups and give a negative image then we should feel free to exercise a more poetic interpretation of RoW - after all if we pushed our bikes along the footpath we'd be creating even more erosion but often thats not the point, often its a simple 'point of principle' argument.

One thing about the Kinder mass trespass was that it was working class ramblers wanting access to the moors overlooking where they lived that were owned by very rich people, there was quite a political thing going on as well. As others have said we do have pretty good legal access so doing a mass trespass would make us look like spoilt brats.

Another way of looking at it is if the powers that be were really that bothered about cheeky riding, surely they'd try harder to stop it?

**** me Will - cracking post that i 100% agree with 🙂

If you walk along Kinder Scout which is pretty much the soul reserve of walkers

I like the idea of a 'soul reserve', but I'm guessing you meant 'sole preserve'...

@badlywireddog

that's a bloody good point actually. Right now cheeky trails tend to be the plaything of locals, who have scoped them, ridden them, know them, and I would argue have more of a right (not a technical right, just a fuzzy notional right, they live there, is basically what I'm saying, and I think that makes your cheekiness, riding from your own front door more legitimate). I have some rather good local cheekiness where people would surely get injured if the army of weekend warrior middle management types that some doom sayers are predicting, were to descend upon them.