[Closed] Bath - Brown's Folly (aka Sally in the Woods) - Under attack from local Tories..

So you advocate ignoring the signs saying no cycling anywhere on the site because it doesn't suit you?

So if I did the same with a motorbike or a Land Rover you'd think it was equally acceptable?

So you're backtracking on the claim of criminality then. Thanks.

So you advocate ignoring the signs saying no cycling anywhere on the site because it doesn't suit you?

So if I did the same with a motorbike or a Land Rover you'd think it was equally acceptable?

But thats not what you claimed!

the former is a civil trespass

the latter is a criminal offence (S34 Road Traffic Act)

one is illegal, the other isn't

You've stressed here your concern over the 'illegality' of people riding their bikes there - I've pointed out to you (fairly clearly and effectively I'd like to think) that it isn't!

If I put up a sign in my pub saying 'do not read the bath chronicle' it would not make it [u]illegal [/u]to do so would it?

No I'm not.

Two issues.

1. Riding off the paths. Inevitably causing damage to protected species. Against the law.

2. Riding on the paths. Trespass and dangerous to walkers.

If you condemn riding off the paths I am happy.

As I have said, I don't mind sharing the paths with careful, considerate cyclists. But I and many other people have seen increasing numbers of cyclists who do not behave carefully and considerately. Who use the paths as a racetrack.

The landowner says there should be no cycling. Not me.

Inevitably causing damage to protected species.

[b]inevitably?[/b]

Which species, what damage?

Anyone run over a bat recently?

The NE site report and condition survey, dated 1st October 2014, does not express any such concerns!

I really hope no tax payers money pays for your time.

I posted a link to the SSSI designation earlier. There are loads of protected plant species there including, if I remember rightly, eight or nine species of orchid alone. You might not appreciate their value or significance but that is not the point.

I state again

The NE site report and condition survey, dated 1st October 2014, does not express any such concerns!

so what are you basing your claims of damage on?

Instead of waisting your time campaigning about the possibility that there might be some badly behaved mtbers (and the will be some) why don't you campaign for a trail Centre to be created? Mtbers will be happy, somewhere they can have input to making and then using. The supposedly traumatised walkers will be happy as the bikers (In the main) will be in the trail Centre. Positive moves are always better than negative ones...

I think that thee were two ways to approach the issue:

1. start a "Ban them all campaign"
2. work with all the stakeholder groups

you chose 1, I would hope that the internet argument can be paused whilst you have a cup of tea and a biscuit and then decide to go and talk to the stakeholder groups in person more widely than you currently have in the spirit of trying to get a successful solution

as for the SSSI and the protection of it I would be asking Natural England for support for a discretionary dog exclusion restriction under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. The presence of dogs both on and off the lead will have a measureable impact on the Flora and fauna which make up the reasons for designation. Such orders can be restricted to time of year and also apply to PROW. These orders will have a measureable benefit to the SSSI condition.

why don't you campaign for a trail Centre to be created?

This is a very good question Malcolm

if your concern is people riding on paths they shouldn't be, why not spend some time calling for some dedicated paths for mountain bikers?

Have you been over and visited Ashton Court recently? How popular the dedicated trails there are and how they have removed nearly all concerns over conflict between users? People of all sorts out and about, having fun, smiling and laughing and getting on fine without any problems, (shock horror, another SSSI too!)

I have been saying exactly this.

If I am elected I will campaign for the creation of a dedicated MTB trail close to Bath.
A testing trail that would be a significant asset and bring MTB riders to the city and a separate easier trail for less advanced riders.

Hallelujah!

I think we all know the ideal location for it too 😉

Of course, in these times of austerity, it would be difficult to find funding for a project without any existing trails - but fortunately the location we're all thinking of seems to have exactly the type of terrain and facilities that attract mountainbikers already at minimal cost to the beleaguered taxpayer 😀

If I am elected I will campaign for the creation of a dedicated MTB trail close to Bath.
A testing trail that would be a significant asset and bring MTB riders to the city and a separate easier trail for less advanced riders

I would hope you would also campaign for wider access for user groups to the countryside as well as places where people will drive to ride

What about the SSSI though, do you need some help with talking to the relevant bodies to get the dog restriction order. Dog fouling will be a measurable issue within the SSSI causing soil enrichment and loss of habitat for the orchids and the presence of dogs will also be disturbing the bats in their winter roost. The sooner you act on this the better.

If I am elected I will campaign for the creation of a dedicated MTB trail close to Bath.
A testing trail that would be a significant asset and bring MTB riders to the city

Speaking as an MTB rider from outside Bath, based on your posts here I would think twice about visiting your city even if it did have a decent trail. You pay lip service to liking cycling, but based on everything else you've said and apparently done you don't seem to like us very much at all, except to pick fights with.

Out walking the dog's earlier today and was in an area that is of great archaeological interest, with RoW footpaths around it (I know this as I avoid it on my Mountain Bike) Anyway coming in the opposite direction down the footpath was a horse rider on a horse. So I put my dogs on a their leads, stood out the way as the horse rider passed, we acknowledged pleasantries and went on our way enjoying the beautiful Wiltshire countryside. 😀

Now given that this was a footpath and NOT a bridleway, perhaps I should have remonstrated with the horse rider and told them they should get off the horse and push it along the footpath, written an article in the local newspaper, reported it to the council, Police, Ministry of Defence and put obstacles across the footpath to stop other horse riders. All for an encounter that took probably about a minute. 🙄

if people draw my attention to illegal behaviour of any sort that is evidenced I will run a story on it.

Take a look at any public highway then, plenty of illegal behaviour" going on there daily 😀

yourself stopped by a Nature England Inspector, arrested and fined heavily

Erm, nope they can't. They have no power of arrest. Trespass? Nope, civil Matter, Aggravated trespass...does not apply. Criminal damage? Nope, damage has to be more than £5k for it to be indictable. Sorry but that is a hollow threat.

Nemesis, if people draw my attention to illegal behaviour of any sort that is evidenced I will run a story on it.

As I have explained, I have discussed it with Natural England and they have told me that they have inspectors with powers of arrest and the fine can be up to £20,000. As I said before, if this is not true I am surprised.

No they do not. They are not Police Officers and have the same powers of arrest as any other person. See above.

Oh the irony of this is hilarious. A 4x4 greenlaner reporting motorbike riders on Salisbury Plain.

[url= http://www.thisiswiltshire.co.uk/news/8887228.Illegal_riders_put_Erlestoke_walkers_to_fright/ ]Malcolm Cupis reports Motorbike Riders in Erlestoke Woods[/url]

I use the Plain a lot and have found the vast majority of Motocross riders are quite courteous to other users. The worst offenders tend to be those on 4 wheels and this is backed up by the Landmarc Range Wardens, who I quite often stop to chat too.

Shame we couldn't see the You Tube video, the comments tell a story 😉

Here, again, is a link to the SSSI citation for Brown's Folly. http://www.sssi.naturalengland.org.uk/special/sssi/sssi_details.cfm?sssi_id=1002510

How does the Brown's Folly SSSI differ from the one at Ashton Court?

Yes, Malcolm we know, you posted it earlier in the thread

whats your point?

On the page it links to the site condition review and as already pointed out, there is no concern over access in general or bikes in particular, and all units seem to be in favourable or favourable improving condition

So I'll ask you again, what are you basing your claims of damage on?

Applauds STW and Ninfan in particular

I never thought i would see you bashing a Tory 😉

This has absolutely nothing to do with party politics. So far it simply seems to be people deciding that anecdotal evidence of some issue that doesn't actually seem to exist in any real way needs to be reacted to by trying to enforce pointless and unnecessary rules.

mcupis - Member
Ninfan you would be right if it wasn't a SSSI. This is governed by Section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. [b]It is a law.[/b]

Oh dear.....
[PEDANT]It is an ACT OF PARLIMENT - a Statutory Instrument. NOT a law [PENDANT OFF]

I suggest you learn yourself of the difference.....

This bloke seems like a prize pillock..

Well done everyone for keeping calm and considered and setting him straight

^^^^ Pity you couldn't do the same

+1

Name calling just makes it easy for him to claim as he did earlier in the thread that he's tried to engage but was insulted rather than taken on. It's clear that we have a strong position so let's not undermine it with silly comments.

I must admit, this thread is a cracking read!

It seems Mr Cupis has got hold of a spade and is determined to dig himself into a hole of his own making. I do like it when reactionary 'antis' are held up to the light by people who know what they are on about.

Malcolm Cupis and Ninfan on Question Time, please! Sometimes shooting fish in a barrel is good spectator sport, it seems.

I'm a silly bloke.. I make silly comments

get over yourselves, it's not a ****ing NATO summit

This bloke seems like a prize pillock..

As far as I'm concerned, you haven't called him that, anyway. You merely stated what you were thinking.

Worth recounting a lovely exchange from a cricket match many moons ago. Nots/Derbys seam bowler Mike Hendrick (who was a bit of a wit) had a series of good appeals turned down by the umpire. Exasperated, he asked "umpire, what would you do if I called you a ****?"

The umpire replied, "I'd have to report you to Lord's, there would be a disciplinary, and you would probably get a ban".

So Hendrick asked "what would happen if I just thought it?"

Umpire (walking into it beautifully) "well, there's not a lot I can do about that, is there?"

Hendrick, "OK, I think you're a ****".

Malcolm - would you confirm this is a quote from yourself?

I'm a bit dubious about the value of shared use paths because they seem to create conflict. What I'm trying to understand is whether they are worth persevering with - can the vast majority of cyclists and pedestrians be educated to treat others with consideration and respect? What should be do with people who behave in a disrespectful way, inconveniencing and and endangering others, what the implications are for policing or whether to conclude that this is not possible and that greater emphasis should be placed on other things.

ninfan : Shared use of trails and giving due respect to other users seems to work up here in Scotland, although the vast majority of conflict i have had on local trails is due to non-natives (sorry) moving up here and objecting to use by cyclists, i've even had a couple of pokes in the chest with poles by walkers whilst i've stopped to allow them to pass but thankfully being aluminium they do snap rather easy.

Ride where you like, when you like but always with the consideration that others may be using the trail - works fine for me, even when i have very rarely ventured south of the border.

Seems to work well down in England on our [u]twenty thousand miles[/u] of bridleway 99.9% of the time too 😯

Let me get this absolutely correct:

Someone who is an ardent 4x4 lover, who drives there massive, heavy, and potentially dangerous vehicle across Britians countryside for fun is having a pop at people who do the same, but riding a bike, that weighs 100x less than a 4x4, and typically averages a just 5 to 10mph off road.

er? seriously? This just comes across as "i don't like it, so ban it" to me.
I'm pretty sure than we can find any number of "4x4 drivers acting irresponsibly" You Tube videos too.

This is me speaking as an ex "Greenlaner" who left that "sport" 20 years ago when it was clear that the conflict it caused in the countryside was un-sustainable. I personally have no issues with people driving their 4x4s, but lets face it, that does rather make the complainant in this case look rather two faced doesn't it?? You seem to resent the loss of thousands of miles of RUPP & BOAT to 4x4 vehicles due to overuse and fear of contention, but somehow don't seem to see the same issue with trying to limit where we can ride a bike??

Lets face it, when you ask someone if they have any issues with MTBers, they will always say "oh, yes, the other day i was nearly run down by some lunatic on a mountain bike" and yet, so far, i've never actually ever heard of it actually occuring. A&E is NOT full of walkers maimed by MTBers, in fact, it's generally full of MTBers having broken themselves without any help from our bipedally propelled fellow co-users!

To quote the French (they do have a way with words sometimes), plus ca change.

There will always be uptight wannabe Gauleiters who detest everyone except their own ilk having fun in 'their' countryside.

There are a hardcore of a few who will never accept mountain bike riding because they don't like it. Thankfully the majority are either cheerfully encouraging or at least accepting of us if we, in turn, respect them.

It is the same in all walks of life, sometimes you just have to accept that some people have [u]needs[/u] that involve making other people feel bad when they shouldn't have to. To expect to be able to reason with such people is touching, but naive. But hey, at least when we are all trucking up Tarmac paths in the Cairngorms on our mobility scooters because we are 20+ stones we can console ourselves that we are following the rules.

That SSSI report looks pretty good doesn't it? Also it doesn't mention any other plant species than trees supporting the bats, no mention of orchids or anything else. No mention of damage caused by mountain bikers !!! Or that mountain biking is a concern.

I've never seen a collision between a walker and a mountain biker, I have however been bitten 3 times by dogs, whilst out riding, on that basis perhaps dogs should be banned from the countryside!

I don't know how long the woods have been owned by the Wildlife Trust, but if people had been riding there without let or hindrance before that there may be a case for claiming the paths as rights of way under the CROW Act. Since cyclists can only make claims for restricted Byway status, this would also mean the Trust would have to open them all up to horses too. Of course, the chances of a claim succeeding are small, but even the threat might concentrate the minds of the owners and make them more cooperative to negotiated access.
I am a member of my local wildlife trust, but if I found they were behaving in the way AWT seems to be, I would be returning my membership card with a letter explaining why, and with a copy to the local press and media.

This really is a complete non issue. There's no problem in Sally in the woods, I've ridden there countless times, the only issue that I've ever had with a walker is when some silly old bint (in her words) "thought it'd be OK as you were standing still" and her dog bit me.
Other than that I get the odd 'you're not really going to go down that are you?' type comments, and lots of smiles and good mornings.
of course, there's a few of the red sock brigade who look like they are sucking a lemon, but I reckon that they look like that 99% of the time anyway, and there's certainly less issue than on the canal about 1/2 mile down hill where I've definitely had aggression aimed at me for riding (along part of the national cycle network....).

TBH reading this and other issues on here people seem to have with forests and woodlands access...isn't there a national association of mtb'ers that would stop the nonsense or there should be.

A lot of us are actualy old but we seem to be treated like five year olds with the can't ride here brigade when we should be actively working with the other groups to allow the countryside to be enjoyed by all.

imba uk collapsed. CTC was meant to be developing its mtb advocacy but iirc recently got rid of its off-road officer.

http://www.bathnes.gov.uk/services/streets-and-highway-maintenance/public-rights-way/local-access-forum

Local Access Forum is the best way to get user groups working together although each one works differently, you can even apply to join (in 2016!)

Andrew Gough

]Membership Category: User interests
Andrew is a member of the Bristol Cycling Campaign and has an interest in removing barriers to access.

you need to engage him to pick up on the issue

A lot of us are actually old but we seem to be treated like five year olds

I think that's a huge part of the anti-cycling sentiment that people have noticed in this country, both on road and off.

There's no "joie de vivre" (note that we have to go to French for that one!) People get old because they stop playing. They think being an adult, they should put childish things away so they do. And they look down on adults having fun on bicycles as being childish, and so a target for reprimand.

I don't know what the root cause is? Protestant work ethic?

A spin to 16:45 in this might give some people a different perspective on cycling:

Given Malcolm's determined and vociferous concern over conflict on the trails, I'd be interested to hear his opinion on this:

http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey-news/appeal-help-after-dog-hurt-7959512

[quote=dudeofdoom ]A lot of us are actualy old but we seem to be treated like five year olds

To be fair, some of us do like to pretend we're five year olds 😉

Junkyard - lazarus

Applauds STW and Ninfan in particular

Ditto that 😀

As I said in my OP, I've not been on the Forum for ages (as my Posting history might reveal it's been a tough couple of years!!)

Yes, Malcolm will no doubt be back and will no doubt pick this thread apart to see what he can use for his next Bath Mercury "article" against us but I think this thread demonstrates admirably what STW and mountain biking in the UK is all about. You are stars. Thanks 😀

Oh, and Malcolms claim that "if elected" he would campaign to have a trail built somewhere nearby - oh how I laughed at that one. Do I believe it? I'd like to but I've seen too many years of his Tory Chums spending nothing on cycling when they were in power and, like I said, pouring scorn on any plans by the LibDem run Council to do so.. Yes, sadly this is very much party political whether we like it or not. The LibDem run Council has delivered some fantastic cycling projects (The Two Tunnels being one). As if to demonstrate the point admirably, here's the latest article from Malcolm's Mouthpiece (aka the Bath Mercury) calling upon the Council to defer the building of the (much need) link off the Bristol-Bath Railway Path to Bath Spa University. (Malcolm will no doubt claim "We support it" "just not now")..

http://www.bathmercury.com/traffic-fears-a4-roadworks/

Malcolms claim that "if elected" he would campaign to have a trail built somewhere nearby

No evidence of conflict. If anything those videos show the opposite.

No evidence of damage. The recent NE report mentions nothing.

Is anything more than self promotion by mcupis?

Applause to ninfan for well reasoned and researched arguments.

I'm not local but currently live in shouting distance of the Peaks, where similar issues are bubbling.

I've also lived in the countryside on a farm and had to deal with walkers claiming an out of date map showing a footpath that was diverted over a decade ago makes it ok that they're in looking in my kitchen window.

I'm going to play devils advocate here. I'm not convinced that mcupis is being totally unreasonable.

Shared use is a worthy goal.

That means no parties of walkers obstructing any passage by other users just as much as it does that riding fast may not always be appropriate. And then there's the group rides. Ten to twenty stravassholes out for a group ride are going to spoil anyone's day much more than a similar number of pootlers although the numbers may be similar.

I'm a fan of small groups and respectful use, which includes not riding at people, not swearing at them, thanking them for letting me by and not getting shouted at about the bell I don't have and refuse to carry. On the dogs point, and I have three border collies, most places "in the countryside" they should be on leads unless they're actually working sheepdogs - for their safety as well as everyone else's.

Also agree however that it wouldn't be the first time that the existence of a bad but legal 'mountainbike trail' has been used to argue against access elsewhere.

Really, Access laws in this country are a bit mad, but as none of the interest groups seem able to grow up and accept that sharing is ok, it's not that much of a surprise.

I met four members of Folly Flyers at the folly on a walk this morning. First thing to say is that they were all behaving in a considerate manner. They were cycling at a sensible speed on one of the worst sections - where the path is very narrow, extremely uneven, the surface has been worn away to expose the bedrock and this is very, very slippery to walk on. All four came to a complete stop when they saw my wife and I approaching with our dogs and moved their bikes off the path. We then had a chat and all four were friendly, warm and reasonable. I explained who I was and we shook hands and talked about the issue. They know that they shouldn't be there. I know why they want to be. As I have said before, I don't have a problem sharing the path with considerate, careful cyclists, although I am concerned about the damage being done to the surface at this specific point and we did dicuss this. From my point of view I felt that I met good people this morning who were careful and considerate and I don't see why any reasonable person would be worried about this. I am sorry that the activities of careful and considerate people like these may be adversely affected by a minority of fools who don't display the same levels of behaviour, and that is the same in all walks of life.

I don't think anyone is going to argue with the sentiment you've expressed there. Anyone who rides aggressively on a narrow shared path with no regard for the safety of pedestrians is a selfish fool.

However, your encounter today hopefully has planted the seed that the majority of mountain bikers are the reverse of this, and I'm glad you can see the possibility that these paths can be shared in future with little conflict.

Attempting to enforce a blanket ban will simply remove the opportunity for the kind of dialogue that helps this along, and won't deter the type of rider who causes all the problems.