Forum menu
SFB how many kittens have you killed this week you evil evil man 😉
Won't somebody 'Think of the children'
I astounded that anyone has had the audacity to liken mountain biking on a busy path to drink driving, ffs get a bloody grip.
Thing is, there's nothing wrong with drink driving if no one gets hurt.....
Watched the entire clip with baited breath expecting to see hoards of people diving out the way of a screaming herd of mountain-bikers.
Damn was I let down. What a beatup over nothing.
It looked a bit frustrating due to the people traffic but I don't think the riders placed anybody in any real danger other than themselves.
I don't mind a bit of mountain hiking from time to time, and stepping aside for 10 seconds to let a few bikers through is not a big deal really, whilst expecting them to stop and walk their bikes past me is a bit silly IMO.
Perhaps not being from this country I haven't become so overprotective over trail access as many of you.
In Aus if I didn't ride footpaths and illegal trails on crown land I wouldn't ride at all but I digress.
Watched some of it, particularly the 15:50-1620, couple of passes looked a bit iffy, difficult to tell from the vid tho. Surely asking the what the walkers thought would be better. 2 complaints out of lots and lots of walkers suggest they weren't riding heinously and TBH peterstuart (grough link) sounds like he's bike hater anyway so can maybe discount that one as my mum riding her shopper down the highstreet would probably have him diving for cover (and then diving for the pen and paper to write a complaint to the council).
Bad time to do it yep sure but hindsight and all that.
I wonder if some of you dont not realise how steep, narrow and rough that path ism with big falls in places.
Our right to roam / right of access in Scotland is dependent on behaving in a reasonable and responsible manner. YOu do not have the right to ride like they were doing in that clip. You MUST give way when you are on a bike
Access rights extend to cycling. Cycling on hard surfaces, such as wide paths and tracks, causes few problems. On narrow routes, cycling may cause problems for other people, such as walkers and horse riders. If this occurs, dismount and walk until the path becomes suitable again. Do not endanger walkers and horse riders: give other users advance warning of your presence and give way to them on a narrow path. Take care not to alarm farm animals, horses and wildlife.http://www.outdooraccess-scotland.com/out-and-about/recreation-activities/cycling/
PLease stick with this. Riding the Ben is acceptable at times when its not busy. Its probably one of a very few tracks in Scotland that get busy enough for this to be an issue.
Because there are so few occasions that you would find this or any other path as busy that it is reasonable to expect bikers to avoid the busy times
Our right to roam / right of access in Scotland is dependent on behaving in a reasonable and responsible manner.
actually it isn't. Even if the law were to be changed (itself unlikely) Scotland is huge and largely empty (people were driven out by the English). Mostly there's no one to stop you going where you want, same as in England and Wales (and Ireland from the bit I rode, the Wicklow Way)
I think Simon has laid out the situation quite well in his posts on here.........how many more miles has this whinge-fest got left!?
simonfbarnes - Member.....Mostly there's no one to stop you going where you want
But plenty to tell you to stop going where you want 😆
how many more miles has this whinge-fest got left!?
Oh this is a ten pager, at least 😀
Yes, yes, this bickering is all very well, but have we raised the subject of whether they were all wearing helmets? You can't really tell from the video
I believe there's plenty of evidence that the walkers would have given them more space if they were not wearing helmets.:)
A Bogtrotter on Ben Nevis last week:
I'm inclined to think that, having made a mistake of going up there when it was so unexpectedly (to them) busy, they would have been MORE disruptive if they had been pushing their bikes down as rider + bike are twice as wide!
Also it was illadvised of the walkers to turn up in such throngs which must have made the climb nightmarish on foot too, with faster walkers continually having to squeeze past and slower ones being always overtaken...
Simon - can I be the first to congratulate you on raising the bar on genius, satirical, comedy statements. That's without a doubt. the best I've ever read 😆
philfive - Member
... at least we have laws saying you can't ride that and if you do you can be prosecuted. plain, simple and easy.
Wrong. In E and W we have signs claiming you can be prosecuted, but there are no laws to support prosecution (except some very specific by-laws).
SFB/Bogtrotters are in the militant wing of cheeky riders. Disregarding legal niceties, I'm never convinced that such militancy makes a positive impression of cyclists on the non-cycling public.
"[i]I'm inclined to think that, having made a mistake of going up there when it was so unexpectedly (to them) busy, they would have been MORE disruptive if they had been pushing their bikes down as rider + bike are twice as wide![/i]"
I'm inclined to think that, having made a mistake of going up there when it was so unexpectedly (to them, because they clearly didn't even attempt to think that one through) busy, they might have trickled down in a rather more deferential manner and then realised that they'd made a significant error of judgement and decided not to edit up a video of them barging past people and post it on the internet for all to see.
But I guess I'm a hopeless optimist.
(Oh, in reference to the earlier "get a bloody grip" comment re the driving analogy: it's an analogy, not an equation of the two. The point of the analogy was simply to show that various defences of the riding on the video become demonstrably fallacious when tested against an activity which also places others at risk but which happens to be considered universally unacceptable. The underlying point being that the actual risk is not directly altered by whether the driver/rider in question perceives themselves as so skilful that rules shouldn't apply or whether they feel something is safe because they've got away with it so far.)
"[i]can I be the first to congratulate you on raising the bar on genius, satirical, comedy statements. That's without a doubt. the best I've ever read[/i]"
It's got more holes than Swiss cheese. Read more 🙂
SFB/Bogtrotters are in the militant wing of cheeky riders.
think of it rather as civil disobedience - we're always disarmingly polite and friendly, except perhaps when riding away quickly from aggressive farmers 🙂
Wrong. In E and W we have signs claiming you can be prosecuted, but there are no laws to support prosecution (except some very specific by-laws).
correct, barring a right of way you are liable to the landowner for any damage you cause in passage, but this is a civil tort for which he/she would have to take you to court at his/her own expense (a win only for the lawyers). Even where there ARE bylaws, the enforcement is notably lax, eg: http://www.bogtrotters.org/downloads/stanage.html
It's got more holes than Swiss cheese
why thankyou Bez old lad :o) Whatever anyone else may think, this is pure comedy to me!
as for the posting of the video I think they've done everyone a service by demonstrating that it would be better to do it at a quieter time, or not at all as it looked crap to me 🙂
my post vanished! The end-of-page bug has hit me 3 times on this topic so far...
It's not a bug Simon
😉
LOL
must go to bed
[IMG] 
[/IMG]
It's not a bug Simon
you mean it's intentional ? Oh no, I know, it's a [b]feature[/b] :o)
must go to bed
is that Sherlock or Van Gogh ??
looks a little like you actually 😆
looks a little like you actually
except my hair is straight and greying and shorter and my nose is much bigger and I never sleep on my front ?
obviously 🙄
what a bunch of ****ers
The path is so busy... as you would expect.... given the holiday and the location.
A first light descent would have been much more appropriate.
Plenty other, better hills, with better descents and less walkers.
Makes you wonder why you would choose this hill.
It wouldn't be my choice.
I'm just glad they didn't have a dog off the lead with them!
In all seriousness though, imbeciles, please f*** off and make us all look like kints to the general public somewhere else.
petesal - MemberThe path is so busy... as you would expect.... given the holiday and the location.
A first light descent would have been much more appropriate.
Plenty other, better hills, with better descents and less walkers.
Makes you wonder why you would choose this hill.
Precisely for those reasons I would imagine.
A reputation as a first class asshat takes time and effort to cultivate.
All a bit pathetically 'look at me, I'm a rebel', I'm afraid.
Welcome back sfb. 😀
About time we had someone challenging rules/perceptions etc!
Edit: on a serious note, cycling is not 'banned' from Ben Nevis so surely they are not breaking the law?
It must have taken an awful long time and a lot of effort to get those bikes up there but don't think this was emphasised in the vid.
Why should the trail be exclusively for walkers?
wow - way to resurrect it
no ones saying its illigal
no ones saying its banned
we are saying it was irresponsible to pick the middle of one of the busiest days of the year to tear down it.
300 posts here we come smee !
Read the thread - it'll all become clear.cinnamon_girl - Member
Edit: on a serious note, cycling is not 'banned' from Ben Nevis so surely they are not breaking the law?It must have taken an awful long time and a lot of effort to get those bikes up there but don't think this was emphasised in the vid.
Why should the trail be exclusively for walkers?
but that doesn't reflect my attitude to fellow trail users, to whom I'm unfailingly polite, and I often take time as I bimble along cautiously at the back of the pack to check with the walkers I meet that they haven't been inconvenienced by the other riders.
Probably not need to if you did not ride footpaths in such large numbers
Even if the law were to be changed (itself unlikely) Scotland is huge and largely empty (people were driven out by the English). Mostly there's no one to stop you going where you want, same as in England and Wales (and Ireland from the bit I rode, the Wicklow Way)
Good point I had not thought of ignoring the law…bit like drink driving in rural areas…I mean it's only bad if you get caught then
Please stay I have missed you and some very funny posts in there...go on mention rainbow bridge wher epets go to die 😉
As I said in an earlier post, I've walked up and down Ben Nevis as part of a group of friends doing 24 hour 3 peaks challenge. I was shocked at the number of charity walkers, some of whom clearly were struggling big time.
Frankly, I got fed up with having to dodge them!
Never mind it's for charity, mountain rescue will help us when we can't walk any further [s]cos we haven't done any bloomin' training[/s]
So ... I ask ... should one take a personal responsibility test before being allowed anywhere near a mountain?
[i]So ... I ask ... should one take a personal responsibility test before being allowed anywhere near a mountain? [/i]
no. HTH.
"[i]It must have taken an awful long time and a lot of effort to get those bikes up there but don't think this was emphasised in the vid.[/i]"
I'm lost on this one. Are you saying that because they've put a bit of effort into behaving like dicks they've earned the right to behave like dicks?
CG
the law basically says you can ride anywhere so long as you are not a dick. These guys were dicks.
"[i]So ... I ask ... should one take a personal responsibility test before being allowed anywhere near a mountain? [/i]"
Clearly not. But it seems quite reasonable one should apply consideration and common sense before taking themselves up a mountain and whilst on it, and reflect on the earlier decisions once down - ideally in a context wider than just one's own viewpoint.
But then you can replace "taking themselves up a mountain" with absolutely any activity and that still applies. The absence of the above process is pretty much the essence of being a dick.
we are saying it was irresponsible to pick the middle of one of the busiest days of the year to tear down it.
It was 6am start up and 9.30am start down. Not really middle of the day.
The path is so busy... as you would expect.... given the holiday and the location.
Like walkers, mountain bikers are often restricted to holidays to drive 6 hours for the weekend. Should mountain bikers be restricted to only riding on weekdays?
A first light descent would have been much more appropriate.
Was a first light ascent. Is it responsible to lead a group of mountain bikers up a proper mountain in the dark?
...and reflect on the earlier decisions once down
Because they have not come out to your forum to reflect, does that mean they did not reflect or regret earlier decisions?
"[i]Because they have not come out to your forum to reflect, does that mean they did not reflect or regret earlier decisions?[/i]"
Not at all.
However, I think that spending time editing up a lengthy video and then sticking it up on YouTube for all to see does rather imply that - even if they did reflect on it - regret wasn't exactly one of the responses.