Forum menu
All hail Pieface. good points well made
In particular i agree about boot tread, i got new boots recently after finally giving up on totally bald ones, my first thought was "yey grip, oh how i have missed thee!" but given the recent weather, i got to the bottom of a steep grass section and looking round for the dog and saw, like a good mtb tyre on a locked up wheel, i had in places torn the turf from the surface under neither. I now pay more attention top my walking style.
I now also, follow on from trail maintenance knowledge kicka drainage ditch in puddle when possible, to make things better. Stuff like that from everyone would make all our paths and trails better.
army of weekend warrior middle management types
Don't forget the IT workers and other stereotypes 😀
I'm not saying that locals have some sort of right, moral or otherwise, to ride local footpaths, they're on the ground and marked on the maps, usually, anyone can ride them, it's just that locals tend to know where they are.
There's nothing stopping anyone from doing the same thing, but the mags and the guidebook writers can't publicise them. Which is why I'm fine with the current rights of way system although it is, of course, utterly ridiculous and bears no relation to suitability for use or sustainability.
The difference between us and pre-war ramblers is that there are - generally - no game-keepers to beat us up or point shot-guns at us, which was what it was all about. No prison for trespassing. Bar the odd disapproving look, in the real world, with a bit of common sense, we're pretty much free to ride where we want ime.
Anyway...
I missed the walk up there this week. I'd have gone along and thanked a number (including the one who is still alive) for what they did for all.
It's dissapointing that many MTB'ers don't realise that many of the "cheeky" routes they use, actually carry unrecorded cycle rights and are perfectly legal. Trailbikers spent decades researching and claiming higher rights on routes. Many of these claims simply weren't processed due to pressure from wealthy and influential landowners. Those same claims were then victim to the NERC act of 2006. What's this got to do with cycling? A large proportion of those claims have been totally dismissed due to a clause in the NERC act that retrospectively invalidates the lawfull use of motorcycles on these routes from being counted towards dedication of a lower (ie restricted byway) class of route. Trailbikers had lost the routes due to NERC anyway, but those with vested interests ensured that the rights were lost to mountainbikers as well. Why? because a Restricted Byway is a Carriageway in law (even though motorvehicles can't use most of them) and this means landowners cant plough them, gate them, or rip out adjacent hedges. What's worse is that organisations such as the CTC supported the introduction of this legislation that's denied access for mountainbikers. Worse still the effect of the act means it's much, much harder to claim a route than ever before. Prior to this one could simply find the relevant historicall evidence and submit a list of the supporting documents (usually held in county records office) with the application. The legislation now requires every document to be copied and submitted with the application and strict standards for mapping etc. I guess the CTC were either incpompetent and this is an unintended result or they sold off MTB rights as a trade off for persecuting Trailbikers and securing some SUSTRANS money - they are all about roadbikes after all.
Fed up with the remainig 1% of acccess in the Peaks left open to them being threatened, the Trailbikers had a protest of their own on the Kinder anniversary:
It is important to remember that a few cyclists, on the bikes of the day, were involved in the trespasses of the 30's.
The Ramblers emailed a petition to sign the Early Day Motion in Parlaiment last week in support of this. I tweaked the text to add bikes. Though our local MP (P Davies, Con)was not sympathetic, I'm pleased say the motion went through anyway.
I am involved in the Bradford Local Access Forum and have a good detail of time for the representatives from the Ramblers. We are all after better access to our countryside.
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 think this is the main point - a lot of ramblers have their backs up about mountain bikers, and every time someone screeches past without a word, it reinforces that. A cheery "hi" will go a long way to diluting any tensions there.
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 think you've said something similar in the past, I agree 100%. I'd much rather have the status quo than legal free access to footpaths to all riders. Opening everything up would create a massive influx of riders, increased erosion and more accidents, plus the newfound sense of entitlement means a lot of riders would be unapologetic. All of this would heighten tensions between riders and walkers.
The other thing I wonder about - there are two types of footpath: Sometimes tracks are designated footpaths for prevention of erosion, and to allow walkers to have a quiet wander. Whereas other tracks I reckon are only footpaths by virtue of their size, and the fact that it's basically too tight / steep for horses (I.e. they couldn't really be designated a bridleway). I believe this second type could be opened up to riders. However, there are plenty of riders at the more 'casual' end of the spectrum that would struggle with this sort of track and should probably stick to bridleways. Reclassifying everything would cause problems for them.
Opening everything up would create a massive influx of riders, increased erosion and more accidents
That I very much doubt, a frighteningly large proportion of off road riders have no idea about where they can and can't ride. I imagine that apart from some honeypot routes things would hardly change with the exception that riders using the footpaths would suffer generally less abuse and the more law abidiung amongst us wouldn't have that slight nagging guilty feeling about where they ride.
Mass trespass will not work IMO without the sympathy of the majority of the public and you won't get that.