[Closed] Bogtrotters ride the Ben on a bank holiday!

"[i]What do you think that would achieve other than a heated argument? [/i]"

What's wrong with heated argument? I see nothing inherently wrong with letting people know you feel strongly about something provided you back it up with constructive and reasoned points. I'm not saying I'd just call them a dick and leave it unexplained.

In my defence I would call someone a dick face-to-face if I was with them and they rode like that.

Wow - what a thread...I kinda got fed up at the sniping by page 3 and jumped to the last page by wanted to add my 2p worth.

I guess those that are anti this caper ALWAYS negotiate all other users in a responsible manner when out for a ride and have NEVER left the marked path - aye right!

I know there are masses of other places to ride but as decent wild riders does the 'challenge' of riding up (ahem) and down Britain's largest mountain have no appeal whatsoever?

Anyway - why do the walkers have right of way over a biker, surely it is common sense and decency to give way to those coming down the hill? Isn't that normal etiquette for walker versus walker?

I think everyone's definition of 'reasonable' will always be different and unless behaviour is 'dangerous' then really we should be able to share the land without the animosity - sheesh.

Don't get me started on the erosion debate - thousands of walkers versus a handful of bikers and the bikers are the ones that are always lambasted - grrr.

Read the thread- walkers have right of way in Scotland.

... back it up with constructive and reasoned points. I'm not saying I'd just call them a dick and leave it unexplained.

I would say it's far more effective and polite to avoid the name calling and go with just the constructive and reasoned points. Will have a higher chance in the resulting argument being won.

Will have a higher chance in the resulting argument being won

this argument is all win regardless of the outcome 🙂

(if any)

Read the thread- walkers have right of way in Scotland.

Yeah I know they do - but why?

Really very current too as a good pal has been wanting to do nevis for a while - been trying to talk him out of it just cos it won't be fun - not really from a responsibility perspective.

So I guess the natural conclusion is that adhering to the code rules out many big mountain rides in Scotland then - Macdui, 'Gorm, Lomond, Lawers, Vorlich, etc. What about Torridon neck of the woods - is that ok as not heavily used by others - doesn't answer the path damage / erosion issue tho. So - what is allowed - Landy track only????

It is [b]mountain [/b]biking after all!

Uphill traffic traditionally has right of way too.

"[i]I guess those that are anti this caper ALWAYS negotiate all other users in a responsible manner when out for a ride ... aye right![/i]

Er. Yes. I think so. How is this an incredible concept?

"[i]Anyway - why do the walkers have right of way over a biker, surely it is common sense and decency to give way to those coming down the hill? Isn't that normal etiquette for walker versus walker?[/i]"

It's not about right of way, it's about allowing people the time and space to pass safely. A biker has massively more momentum than a walker, and is 'armed' with a vehicle that has lots of hard pointy things on it - they should be responsible for it.

And it's not about up or down, it's about being in control and capable of avoiding a collision or forcing others to take evasive action. On the South Downs you can drive motorised vehicles for much of the way, but it would be extremely dangerous to take a landy or a motorbike and hoon it down a hill barging cyclists or walkers out of the way. The vehicle with the mass and the speed and the greater capability of causing an accident is expected to be able to control itself. On foot you can come to a stop very easily. That's a reasonable baseline - can you come to a stop? Can't stop on that technical section? Then don't go charging into it when other people are on it. It's easy enough to apply that to bikes, 4x4s or shoes equally.

"[i]Don't get me started on the erosion debate[/i]"

...because you want to? We're 10 pages in and I've not seen mention of it until now.

wiz74 - Member

I know there are masses of other places to ride but as decent wild riders does the 'challenge' of riding up (ahem) and down Britain's largest mountain have no appeal whatsoever?

Perefectly acceptable to ride the ben - just not on a busy bank holiday

Anyway - why do the walkers have right of way over a biker, surely it is common sense and decency to give way to those coming down the hill? Isn't that normal etiquette for walker versus walker?

Because that is what the law says - its the other side of open access. Its always uphill has priorty as well as well as walkers have right of way

I think everyone's definition of 'reasonable' will always be different and unless behaviour is 'dangerous' then really we should be able to share the land without the animosity

No reasonable has a legal meaning and in this case is further defined by the code. It does not have to be dangerous to be unreasonable.

this is Scotland - its different to England with different laws and different attitudes. Your right to roam comes with a duty - a duty to be reasonable and responsible. This sort of riding is not reasonable or responsible.

See the quote from the code

Uphill traffic traditionally has right of way too.

That right? Always thought it was t'other way round - everyday a school day 😆

wiz74 - Member
So I guess the natural conclusion is that adhering to the code rules out many big mountain rides in Scotland then - Macdui, 'Gorm, Lomond, Lawers, Vorlich, etc.

If you'd bothered to read ALL of the thread instead of cutting to the end, you'd have seen this dismissed as a non-issue. No one here has been calling for a ban on bikes on the mountains and none exists.

Don't confuse "right of way" with "priority", they are completely different things.

If you'd bothered to read ALL of the thread instead of cutting to the end, you'd have seen this dismissed as a non-issue. No one here has been calling for a ban on bikes on the mountains and none exists.

To be fair - the sniping part was tedious so I jumped forward - my bad.

Just seen many debates re: biking on the more popular mountains - wondering where the acceptability line is drawn.

So it is ok to ride anything, anytime as long as its done responsibly - that's the consensus? In summary - sometimes doing it responsibly means its so little fun that it ain't worth doing - i.e. nevis on a Bank Holiday / weekend / summer - Lomond at the weekend, etc.

I am keen to understand what is considered by the STW massive ok and what is not... I WANT to be on the responsible side of things but its not easy...!

So it is ok to ride anything, anytime as long as its done responsibly - that's the consensus?

Yup - and responsible is codified in the law with a little guidance as well. Linked to further back.

"[i]So it is ok to ride anything, anytime as long as its done responsibly - that's the consensus? In summary - sometimes doing it responsibly means its so little fun that it ain't worth doing - i.e. nevis on a Bank Holiday / weekend / summer - Lomond at the weekend, etc.[/i]"

Yes to all of that IMO.

So it is ok to ride anything, anytime as long as its done responsibly - that's the consensus? In summary - sometimes doing it responsibly means its so little fun that it ain't worth doing - i.e. nevis on a Bank Holiday / weekend / summer - Lomond at the weekend, etc.

now that wasn't too hard was it everybody...?

as long as its done responsibly - that's the consensus

the only slight fly in the ointment being that 'responsibility' is not determined by consensus but by personal belief. I'm sure the riders in the video thought they were being responsible and that guided their actions. The rest of you weren't there to be consulted.

we just need to decide what responsible means...I dont think I will be using SFB as my moral compass on this one. 😛

**** me are you lot still engaging Barnes?

From what I can see, it is a complete waste of time to imagine he will take on others' views.

I dont think I will be using SFB as my moral compass on this one

neither were Chris, JC, Badbod et al...

He answered me * swoons*
OK fair point sfb
I agree al but i really do miss him and his contributions

FYI I steer well away from tourist honeypots on bank holidays because I prefer not to have to dodge lots of plebs 🙂

simonfbarnes - Member

as long as its done responsibly - that's the consensus

the only slight fly in the ointment being that 'responsibility' is not determined by consensus but by personal belief

As you keep being told its not personal belief - "responsible" has a legal meaning in general which means to a great extent the consensus defines "reasonable" and in this specific case there is clear guidance.

to be responsible on narrow paths you have to give way to walkers - this is not a matter for personal belief. Its enshrined in the law.
As these guys were not giving way on narrow paths they were not behaving reasonably

it is a complete waste of time to imagine he will take on others' views

funny little gnome just needs a cuddle..

It's surely only a matter of time before the YouTube video is available for full and frank critique? 🙂

[url= http://www.****/news/article-2152659/I-strong-feeling-come--Fury-man-photographed-Everest-traffic-jam-emerges-climber-took-BIKE-mountain.html ]Downhilling at another tourist trap[/url]

to be responsible on narrow paths you have to give way to walkers - this is not a matter for personal belief.[b] Its enshrined in the law.[/b]

As you keep being told its not personal belief - "responsible" has a legal meaning in general which means to a great extent the consensus defines "reasonable"

but I think you've already confirmed that the right of access conveys no substantive benefit (or violating it any penalty) so if people chose instead to go with their personal interpretation it makes no difference ?

Which is, of course, open to interpretation.

and to a certain degree, whether the individual chooses to acknowledge the authority of that law..

just to add fuel to the fire.. 8)

BTW I love "enshrined". I can just picture TJ with incense sticks at his little shrine to the code of responsibility :o)

the right of access conveys no substantive benefit

so if people chose instead to go with their personal interpretation it makes no difference

What about walkers just blocking the path because they ignore the rules or pushing cyclists off bikes when they pass - after all the same enforcement issues. See we are vulnerable if people chose to ignore the rules sfb.

No you won't go to jail SFB - you just prove you are a selfish git.

Most of us do not need the threat of punishment to behave in a reasonable manner - is your sense of morals so deficient that you do?

Most of us do not need the threat of punishment to behave in a reasonable manner

but I think I'm always reasonable!

but if you insist on [b]enshrining[/b] a particular interpretation of reason without any real inducement to conform apart from guilt tripping you may not expect wholehearted compliance. I mean, most of us go on word of mouth. I've been on this planet for 59 years without murdering anyone yet I've never read the statute(s) on murder. Laws are all "party of the first part" and no one has time for that stuff, so someone will say "you can go where you like in Scotland if you're reasonable" and that's all you need to know, as you already understand reasonableness.

It's a bit strong to invoke morality when you're talking about where you ride your bike, I'd keep that for not stealing or sleeping around and such...

but I think I'm always reasonable!

t's a bit strong to invoke morality when you're talking about where you ride your bike

SSSIs are important as they support plants and animals that find it more difficult to survive in the wider countryside. Protecting and managing SSSIs is a shared responsibility, and an investment for the benefit of future generations.

Can you really think of no situation where a moral judgement is required on a bike in the countryside?

Can you really think of no situation where a moral judgement is required on a bike in the countryside?

yes in terms of what you do but not where

SSSIs are important as they support plants and animals that find it more difficult to survive in the wider countryside. Protecting and managing SSSIs is a shared responsibility, and an investment for the benefit of future generations.

but riders have told me of being turned back from SSSIs by people driving landrovers, which I would deem far more disruptive, though one might argue that the rare things are probably well away from the frequented paths anyway...

Not a good advert for mtb riders they were just a bunch fuds.

Not a good advert for mtb riders they were just a bunch fuds

another canard. In what other branch of life is one required to take into consideration what others might think of the category one happens to fall into?

{paxman]should we ride SSSI's then[paxman]

Footy is on - i e I am off now

Happy trails SFB

So SSSI Rangers use Landrovers so you should get to ride your bike there?

Junkyard, we really should give up, look what we're up against:

[img] [/img]

Didn't Singletrack do I ride guide in te cairngorns not so long ago, I thought that was a Area of outstanding natural beauty? Bit hypocritical don't you think, also I always though magazines/papers should take a neutral position instead of having a go?

What's objectionable about that?

Junkyard - Member
I dont think I will be using SFB as my moral compass on this one

.....nor a person who thinks traffic signals and national speed limits are a matter for personal interpretation 😆

Just watched the clip.

WTF were those idiots thinking???!!!!

[i]A [b]white[/b] frame with a [b]gold[/b] stem-cap and [b]green[/b] grips!?![/i]

Jesus wept. It's bloody irresponsible and downright tasteless...