John - I read that bit to mean it was a bridleway that changes at some point along its route to a FP. Often happens at parish boundary. Just shows what a nonsense access is in England & Wales.
Another good reason not to base route decisions on the ROW designation, which have less to do with historic use and impact than what parish the trail is in.
[i]I have far more respect for ramblers than I ever will a mountain biker.[/i]
This may suprise you, but they aren't actually seperate species.
Blimey 😯
Didn't mean this to get so heated.
Lets me just make some stuff clear here.
1) The reason I posted this is becuase I don't think it was kosher
2) I am trying to get more information and I will put it on here if and when I do.
3) The trail in question was cheeky, its a footpath, but the first mile or so is a bridleway. For no obvious reason its designation changes halfway along it. May be a parish boundary, but I couldn't say for sure.
4) I personally do feel that the ROW issue for cyclists is an importasnt one, and needs a cohesive body to apply pressure for access improvements and some clear rules of the trail to be established. The very fact that thsi thread has developed the way it has is that the rules are just not clear.
5) Hora has a point........ but I'm buggered if I know what it is 🙄
6) However, the views he is stating are argumentative and trolling ... I of all people should know 😉
Docile compliance with existing RoW statute does nothing except perpetuate the existing setup because there is no pressure for change.
That's what the Kinder trespass was all about.
I abandoned all attempts at 'Good-boy' compliance a couple of years ago, ironically because of the limited Bridalway network getting quite eroded in places due to heavy recreational traffic of all types. If the network was more extensive, the pressure of overuse would be spread better.
Now my riding is more 'omnivorous' its also richer and more varied. Interestingly I meet far less people now too.
G, clever elaborate troll well executed! Or can you indeed produce a (realistic) pic of said fine?
Everyones aged and grown bitter through lack of achievement
speak for yourself laddie! I'm happy - to ride my bike and see the sights, and on most rides I manage to ride something I've not done before (starting from a low baseline) :o)
b17 - Member
G, clever elaborate troll well executed! Or can you indeed produce a (realistic) pic of said fine?
I would that that was true B17. I'd happily fess up to it if it was. You are wide of the mark I'm afraid.
it is ironic that Rabid Ramblers (a breed within a breed, not ALL walkers are red-socked and foaming at the mouth) are so possessive and aggressive in "policing" rights of way, when they got their access by systematically mass trespassing years ago.
When I was at uni we rode a hill on north wales in january (trefiw possibly, was sadly a LONG time ago...) in deep snow. The top half of the hill had recently been designated footpath only, despite the trails being fireroads that carry commercial logging equipment. We met one pair of walkers in the whole ride, and predictably the male walker went into a rant about how we weren't allowed to ride there. He bit off more than he could chew as my co-rider was doing a PhD in erosion, and all his rant achieved was to ruin his own day out and to show how arbitrary and pointless the trail designation was.
coffeeking - MemberHora if there's one word YOU should not use EVER it's hypocracy
bigyinn - if there's one word you should never ever try to spell, it's hipocrisy
You mean hypocrisy? 😛
[i]Going to be honest and its sad to say TBH but cheeky trails are wrong. Sorry, if it goes against the righteous STW'ers. [/i]
[i]As such I do not recommend riding on them. Sorry. My Mother likes rambling/walking etc- has seen inconsiderate idiots on bikes on bridleways let alone footpaths. No. Please let walkers enjoy walking without the fear of someone riding down at any speed.[/i]
You seemed happy enough to ride a 60/70% cheeky route when you came along on that ride in Hebden Hora.
I did notice you were prepared to ride slowly down everything to make sure you didn't scare walkers though, mummy would be proud ;o)
Just remember kids.....
[url= http://www.cheekytrails.co.uk ][img] http://www.cheekytrails.co.uk/forum/file.php?5,file=844 [/img][/url]
The mods on Chocolate Foot eventually got rid of hora by changing his username to "attention seeker". Gotta be worth a try surely?
Trail poaching may not be a crime but it is a civil offence.
I had mentioned this book a few times on the old IMBA forum but its prob a good time to mention it again. It covers everything including tresspass.
Law of the Countryside published by the Countryside Managment Association.
It is worth noting that when your stopped and asked to leave this can be the landowner or their agent. With the Peak District this would be the ranger service - the national park owns a lot of land. Stanage, Roaches, Eastern Moors. Other a lot of the other areas are owned by Water companies - here I'd go for the rangers being the agent of the water company. Check the dual badging on the uniforms - fairholms / derwent valley or Macc Forest for example. National Trust have their own Wardens so its prob best to listen to them. Not sure if on private land where the landowner asks the national park to do something about it they could then be seen to be 'agents'.
One interesting little snippet in the book is that you dont have to give your name when you are stopped and asked to leave.
Just because it not a criminal offence doesnt mean its a cheeky trial charter. Its more a case of knowing what the situation is when you get caught and to burst the bullshit bubble where people try the big I am approach.
Someone put about building on SSSIs. If you dont have permission /consent they can do you for it. A large shooting estate in the North Pennines recently copped for some massive fines and had to re-instate several KM of illegal estate roads. Nearly everything I do is on SSSIs but I have a whole load of hoops to jump through before Natural England gives permission for the work. It'll be the same for TonyL at Lee Quarry, being a SSSI doesnt mean you cant you just have to prove you can without damaging it before permission is given.
Almost everyone seems to have missed or ignored the main point about Rights of Way…..
…much of the land will be [b][i]owned[/i][/b] by someone. What would your attitude be to Friday / Saturday night closing time kick-outs using your front garden for their kebab and a slash? Should they assertively assume that they can use your property for their leisure??
Hora and the other posters who have commented on the mentality of assertive mtb’ers on inappropriate trails are quite right. It’s not purely about trail use, RoW classification and right to roam where you blwdy well like.
Countyside access does need to be improved, and broadened out to wider user groups. If you are lucky enough to be riding local “cheeky trails” without being challenged (as I do), then great. If challenged, being polite and asking rather than telling, will be a far more constructive approach. I inadvertently ended up talking to a local farmer when riding across his land on an FP – and when asked, he was fine about it. If I’d been mouthy and aggressive, I would have quite rightly been told to bu**er off.
i got collared at the beginning of the year, near Dovstones Ressy, in Saddleworth. The farmer came screaming after me and 2 friends, asking if we were member's of the local club, and if we weren't, we had to give him a tenner each. i just said no problem, sort it out later. and rode off. never gave him anything and i haven't seen him since, so i think he was just chancing his luck for some pocket money.......
much of the land will be owned by someone
ie formerly stolen 🙁
What would your attitude be to Friday / Saturday night closing time kick-outs using your front garden for their kebab and a slash?
I think the extension of personal space to include huge open spaces and even mountains is moot
5) Hora has a point........ but I'm buggered if I know what it is
Hora rarely has a point. And in any case, if he had one, he'd deliberate on here for a month as to whether it was worthwhile, get it, then sell it two weeks later 😀
I've still not been told where I can ride from my own house if i'm not 'cheeky', by the way. Seeing as I live in the middle of a very quiet part of snowdonia, this puzzles me....
[i]What would your attitude be to Friday / Saturday night closing time kick-outs using your front garden for their kebab and a slash?[/i]
You can't equate the expanse of rural, open land to a suburban front garden. Nor can you equate a traveller passing-by harmlessly to late-night anti-social behaviour.
Reminds me of the Duke of Westminster referring to his land (aka The Forest of Bowland) as his "back garden" when he was fighting improved access for ramblers: he lost. Ergo, it's a bogus argument.
Can we not do
[i]formerly stolen
Somehow I dont think your Scotish Crofters who have bought back there estates can be seen as having stolen the land. Nor Tennant farmers who have bought their farms.
Can we not do [b]formerly stolen[/b]
I'm referring to robber barons (cf Dook of Westminster) and enclosure. Crofters being restored their land is a rare example of justice in land assignment. Having some cases put right does not justify the destruction of the commons.
It seems the only thing that anyone can agree on is that current state of affairs regarding access in England and Wales is problematic. In one sense, it seems necessary to point out that not being 'allowed' to ride my bike anywhere I damn well like is not an infringement of my civil liberties. I and YOU are not (necessarily) being excluded, it is merely that for some reason, in some places WE are not 'allowed' to ride our bike. The problem is that there appears to be no logic (or rather an idiotic historicist approach negates any attempt at logic) to where access is fine and where it is not (be this with or without wheels).
Difficulty is, what can be done about it. To be honest, I feel really pessimistic about any satisfactory resolution of the situation. Mostly, it is because I don't honestly believe that the people using the English (apologies for the Welsh, I can't comment about your situation with any great detail) rights of way network and the owners of the landscape really adopt any sense of responsibility for their actions. A truly progressive reform would allow access to land for sustainable forms of recreation, as long as this does not compromise the opportunities for others to do the same, jeopardise someone's means of making ends meet, or damage the environment, or intrude on someone's privacy. Realistically, as a member of this forum for several years, and a climber, fell runner, mtber and skiier for over 20 (shudder), I see little evidence that any “user group” (or perhaps that just should read “person”) can handle that responsibility. Sadly, the typical attitude seems to be [i]I'll walk/run/ride where I like because the law's an ass[/i], which is an overtly confrontational rather than constructive response we all would like.
My own take on it is that in my own area I have got to know where and when I can ride sensibly, without causing problems for, or conflict with, others. I ride accordingly. It is incredibly frustrating if a group of “weekend warriors” turn up and ride without consideration and cause problems (or sour relations) that they can leave behind at the end of the day. As such, if on unfamiliar territory I'll ride within the (common understanding of the)law, or if I can find someone to ask about a nice bit of track to explore, then I'll ask permission. It's similar to the old “not ****ting on your own doorstep” adage, extended to others' doorsteps too.
"formerly stollen"
OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH FFS
does that mean that I have some hippie commune esque "property is theft" right to come and squat in your house? And even if at some point the land was "stollen", if your so sure its yours, go to court go on, go fo it, what's stopping you?
Does a farmer have a right to wander through our office? No
Do I have a right to wander arround farmland? No
Seems perfectly fair to me.
Sadly, the typical attitude seems to be I'll walk/run/ride where I like because the law's an ass, which is an overtly confrontational
only if there's anyone to confront, and there usually isn't
It's similar to the old “not ****ting on your own doorstep” adage, extended to others' doorsteps too.
ie "local rides for local people" 🙁
The flaw in this argument is, if you have a relationship, then whoever you're trying to appease will know the difference between you and the strangers, and if you don't then your localness counts for naught
then I'll ask permission.
the trouble with asking for permission is that it may be withheld - better to apologise after the fact if needed.
Any scheme requiring you to guilt trip unknown 3rd parties is bound to fail
Do I have a right to wander arround farmland? No
yes, actually, in Common Law
I don't try to go in the farmer's house.
Alittle generalist but funny at a time when we were expected to die for [i]King and country[/i] ....alot of land was restricted/by permission or off-limits to the common man.
sfb, not wanting to get into this because you have clearly stated your position repeatedly on various thread on anything bearing a resemblance to a tangent on this issue, but the idea that you have some kind of phantom presence, ghosting across the landscape is laughable. Your rides (judging by those posted on here) are in some of the most intensively used areas of the UK, and your being there will almost always be noticed. Just pointing that out, not saying that it's necessarily a problem.
... if you have a relationship, then whoever you're trying to appease will know the difference between you and the strangers, and if you don't then your localness counts for naught
Apologies, I don't understand this. However 'local rides for local people' is not a fair summary of my point, which was to ride with consideration for others who may come after you (in history, not chasing you down with a pitchfork), wherever you are riding. If you are “local” then your judgement might be better on this matter than as an outsider. The more general point is that you can and should ride in a considerate manner, rather than one that is narrow-minded. Not asking permission for fear of refusal is ridiculous. Maybe we should take that approach for all consensual matters?
Anyway, off out for a ride, it's too lovely an evening to waste it all on here.
ghosting across the landscape is laughable
I wasn't suggesting that, only that, a lot of the time when we're not on recognised ROWs for bikes we never see anyone... and if they object we never know about it
Not asking permission for fear of refusal is ridiculous.
I never mentioned fear, but asking permission implies the need which I deny.
Sorry for stating the obvious but we desperately need a voice to represent us mountain bikers. IMBA did not seem to be appropriate, the CTC belong to a different era, does the Rough Stuff Fellowship carry out any campaigning?
I honestly believe that if we could get organised into a body/association, make our presence known by trying to understand countryside issues, intelligent debate etc., mountain biking could move forward into a better position.
It just doesn't seem as if things have changed over the last ten years. But I'm sure someone will come along, in true STW stylee, and rubbish the above 😉
As a matter of interest, do mountain biking clubs ever get involved in rights of way issues, access etc etc?
the CTC belong to a different era, does the Rough Stuff Fellowship carry out any campaigning?
I'd suggest you've probably got that the wrong way round - it's the RSF who belong to a different era! Meanwhile the CTC are actually very active on access rights - what's more they are a body which people in power will listen to (if not necessarily pay attention). You'd really be wasting your time trying to set up a different body to campaign about this issue.
Though of course if you really want to support a body which might make a real difference to access rights, I suggest you join the [url= http://www.bcu.org.uk/ ]BCU[/url] - they've got far further in attempts to introduce a Scottish style access bill than any cycling organisation!
CG: Totally agree with your point, however trying to organise Mountain Bikers is a lot like herding cats.
You will find that pretty mcuh every forest in the country now has an FC sponsored riding/trail building group attached to it, and many areas are finding that the increased volume of riders are causing groups to become an essential feature of the riding scene in a way that hasn't really happened previously. Many of those will affiliate to various things for various reasons, including insurance. At the moment you tend to be funneled towards British Cycling as they are perceived to be the sports national body... (yeah right !), even though they do little for MTB and offer the average rider nothing whatsoever. CTC with the relatively recent influence of Ian Warby are looking very active on the MTB front and their recent acquisition of OTC training and their hook ups with the FC for training in respect of Trail building and inspection is taking them to a new level in MTB, but at this time pressure groups nationwide don't really exist. However, its only a matter of time IMHO and the sooner the better frankly.
No, I mean that the RSF do actually ride off-road, admittedly not with 5" of travel, whereas the CTC appear to pay lip-service only. For example, if you look at some of their CTC local area websites, mountain biking does not appear to exist.
I don't feel we could ever have similar access rights to the Scots but feel strongly that it could be a lot better.
Will check out that link in a bit, thanks for that.
they've got far further in attempts to introduce a Scottish style access bill than any cycling organisation!
how far is that ?
I'm not trying to rubbish the above CG, but my contention is that the type of people attracted to MTB are constitutionally unsuited to grindingly boring meetings and consultation. Mostly.
G - I reckon there are sufficient literate and intelligent folk on here to do something!
Sorry but I don't want to be directed to a trail centre to ride, the impression I get too is that this is what CTC are putting their efforts into.
We have a fantastic rights of way network but need some joined-up thinking to realise its potential, as well as reviewing what changes can be made, particularly if it affects people who make their living from the land.
sfb - I strongly disagree! Some of us have a "sensible" side and endeavour to see the big picture. What I am not interested in is sitting down with a bunch of boring old farts with closed minds 🙄
EDMs in the Commons.how far is that ?
You've just not looked in the right place. RSF do of course ride off road - they don't do anything else! However there are far more active off road riders in the CTC than in the RSF. There are regularly articles on off road riding in the CTC magazine.whereas the CTC appear to pay lip-service only.
Well if that's the impression you have, you really have got the wrong end of the stick. Some dedicated mountain bike organisations seem to have that as their aim, but the CTC is the opposite if anything. People involved with the CTC include Colin Palmer - a big campaigner for mountain bike access, and organiser of numerous MTBO/Trailquest events. Heard of the Marin Rough Ride? That's organised by Jeremy Atkinson, infamous clog maker and very involved with campaigning for access with the CTC - in combination with them he's enabled access to a vast amount of trails in Radnorshire.Sorry but I don't want to be directed to a trail centre to ride, the impression I get too is that this is what CTC are putting their efforts into.
I belonged to the CTC for one year. Their magazine and its content was completely uninspiring. Perhaps it has changed. Just feel that mountain-biking is loosely on their remit.
The only way forward is an organisation with 100% commitment to mountain-biking. I can't believe that it does not exist.
'Norman saw on English oak.
On English neck a Norman yoke;
Norman spoon to English dish,
And England ruled as Normans wish;
Blithe world in England never will be more,
Till England's rid of all the four.
I turn my back for 24 hrs and see that [b]this debate has really kicked off[/b], hasn't it..?
... Awesome!
This rights of way issue always does run riot on STW, I remember opening a veritable hornets nest a few years back when I asked about cycling on foot paths in the Peak.
[b]Try an Australian perspective:[/b]
...I'm living in Australia at the mo' - and there are no real public 'rights of way' here whatsoever. Just vast expanses of open land that are [u]totally off limits[/u]. If you were to stray onto them, someone would most probably shoot at you (no joke!).
Add to this - the few 'cheeky trails' here and there that have been created by mountain bikers - which are so often [i]charmingly[/i] [u]boobie-trapped with sharp wire at neck hight[/u]. 😯
...and you think you've got it bad in the UK??!
The vast network of public rights of way in the UK are probably singularly one of the best things about our country. They're [i]definitely[/i] worth fighting for..!
IMBA did not seem to be appropriate, the CTC belong to a different era, does the Rough Stuff Fellowship carry out any campaigning?
This does crop up from time to time. As far as I can work out, IMBA is a couple of hundred people. CTC is a few thousand. If you want somebody to stand up and do the work for you while you pay your annual subs, then CTC is what you want: Colin Palmer is one of the most dedicated MTB access proponents I know, and Ian Warby (heads up CTC's off-road section) is also a dedicated MTBer, he buikt chicksands remember?
If you want to actually stand up and do something yourself, the choice is a little harder: join the CTC as mentioned above and become a local rep, or join IMBA and become one of the IMBA reps. IMBA is not about doing things for you, it's about helping you to get things done. When I joined, I looked at the two and chose IMBA, at the time CTC seemed to have a very heavy bias against MTB: seveal years on and thanks to people like Ian and Colin, CTC are in a much better position. Having said that, have a reads of this:
http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/imba-relevance
CTC is a few thousand.
Their site: Today CTC has around 60,000 members
I don't want to drag up an old thread, but just to respond to a couple of the above things directed at points made earlier...
That's kind of the point, if there is a problem, you're not the one there to deal with it.a lot of the time when we're not on recognised ROWs for bikes we never see anyone... and if they object we never know about it.
Or, the only reason you are not looking for constructive means of access is because you think (or rather [i]fear[/i]) that you will not get your own way. It's like putting your fingers in your ears and screaming “I can't hear you”.the trouble with asking for permission is that it may be withheld
Oh and nice posts cinnamon_girl.
Or, the only reason you are not looking for constructive means of access is because you think (or rather fear) that you will not get your own way.
I just don't agree that land ownership implies exclusive access. The owner has a limited right to occupy and exploit the resources of the land, but it's still all of our country. The only thing I fear when out riding is my own lack of coordination and the ensuing danger.
In the South we have different needs to those who ride in National Parks, for example. We have far too many people which naturally puts pressure on the existing rights of way network. Much of it is in private ownership although some have permissive rights of way but these can be taken away. This is where joined-up thinking comes in.
On the positive side we do have some counties, ie Hampshire, who have waymarked trails that can be navigated alongside the route packs they sell. The downside is that the trails are not maintained from year to year and are getting pretty difficult to ride, chest-high vegetation anyone?
Our rights of way are unique, have been used for centuries by an assortment of tribes/people/animals, and consequently our mapping is like an historical document. It's fascinating 🙂
Time to come back into this one I think. Firstly, I'm all for responsible cheeky riding. That's riding where you know you won't cause conflict, won't do undue damage to the trail, and won't jeopardise access. For me that means only straying off-piste locally (where [i]I[/i] know the area), or under the guidance of someone I trust (where they know the area). I wouldn't dream of picking a footpath from a map and just riding it without any sort of local knowledge on its 'status'.
Secondly, I don't see much evidence that either CTC or IMBA are, or have been, actively working for mountain bike access. I know the trail building group I'm a member of has been consulted in the past. I'm a member of the North York Moors Local Access Forum - LAFs are the primary means by which ROW users can influence access, yet there appear to be very few mountain bikers involved. I think I'm the only mountain bike 'specific' LAF member in any of the three North Yorks LAFs (NYM, Dales and NY itself). Considering the vast tracts of prime riding in these areas that's a shame. And it's a particular shame when getting mountain bikers and cyclists represented on LAFs is a declared policy of both CTC and IMBA.
If you want to influence access in your area you should seriously look at who's on your LAF and whether you could be there sticking your oar in for mountain bikers. I think many of you would be surprised how many horse riders and walkers etc are perfectly happy to work for access alongside mountain bikers - many of them do look old and crusty, but they don't necessarily think like that 😉
Interesting post jonathan. I have seen mention of these Local Access Forums but the one thing that holds me back from getting involved is my perceived aggro from other trail users! I would also consider myself old and crusty but that could work to my advantage 🙂
I would suspect you have your work cut out covering such a large area. How much of your time do you dedicate to this? Has it been successful?
Will check out my Local Access forum in the meantime.
Thank you for your reply.
jonathan - just done a bit of investigating and the reps from cycling are ... surprise surprise ... CTC members who use cycle paths and disused railway lines 🙄
So ... whilst I feel passionate about rights of way, I don't want to waste my time banging my head against a brick wall. Shall sleep on it!!
I don't see much evidence that either CTC or IMBA are, or have been, actively working for mountain bike access.
Um, you know those bridleways you like to ride on? CTC won the legal right for cyclists to use them back in the 1960s. Think how many cheeky trails you'd need without that.
Actually, I think you'll find it was a recommendation of the Gosling report, which recommended allowing cycling footpaths as well, and that CTC complained that they had [b]not[/b] been fully consulted on the legislation prior to the drafting of the law.
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1968/apr/09/riding-of-pedal-bicycles-on-footpaths
Local Access Forum
I've just written to the chair of the Cumbria one to see if I can get in 🙂
As a keen "outdoors person" its interesting that an OS map absolves any miss-guidance regarding the information as too whats on the map, as to whats actually on the ground!!... and I quote
"The Representation on this map of any other road,track or path is NO evidence of the existence of a right of way"
I can think of quite a few sign posts in the Lakes that indicate a footpath on one end and Bridleway at the other! 🙄
I am sure sfb will back me on this 😉
Lots of paths/tracks we use on a Tuesday night ride are full width lanes that are more like roads,but actually marked as footpaths on the map,I think theres a vast network of unrecorded, or wrongly recorded ROW in the national parks,hopefully the user groups,like LARA, NPA, and LAFF will recognise this in the future. ❓
Many of the paths I frequently ride are used by local walkers farmers and Landowners,I think theres a good tolerance to all user groups generally as long as you ride responsibly/courtiously and after 6 pm. 😉
Good for you Simon.
Thanks for that Hansard link, zulu - never seen that debate before. Some interesting stuff in there, along with lots of prejudice and entrenched views (which makes me wonder how we ever managed to even get rights on bridleways).
However in amongst all that lot is a cheeky trails charter. The Honorable Member for Torrington, Mr Peter Mills says: "I am glad that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said that he would consider this matter again. I am not happy about the Clause. I do not see why there need be any legislation at all on this matter. Surely this is a matter of common sense and courtesy. People in the countryside know that one can ride a bicycle on certain footpaths and that one cannot do so on others. I do not believe that there is any need for legislation on this point." I reckon that's the definitive answer - an MP said cheeky trails were OK in a commons debate on the matter.
Agreed that the link does make interesting reading. Particularly from the chap who pointed out
a bicycle is a dangerous object to leave in a field full of stock.
WTF!
Also from the same guy
Cycling along a path with a thin covering of grass will soon remove the grass, whereas use by pedestrians will not remove it.
Right, so what you're saying is a footpath, despite the name, is not actually eroded, and therefore created, by the passage of feet...
nice one sfb 😉
Nice one simon. We have a mountain biker on the LAF for the peak park now, too.