[Closed] Broadcasting cheeky trails

Maybe I have more faith in English standards of decency than you. 🙂

Have you travelled on the tube recently or ventured inside the M25 while driving a car? 😉

Essentially Its very possible that the mountain bikers of the future never find the sport because they never venture beyond the 'no bikes sign' on the footpath at the end of their road.

I suppose that's plausible, but equally plausibly there may be plenty of other reasons why people don't take up cycling. I guess all I'm saying is that simply legalising footpaths won't necessarily make a huge difference here and that it's not the same as 'More cycle routes particularly away from busy traffic' although in some cases, of course, it will be.

And even if lots of people cycle for transport or family recreation on, say, gravel tracks or segregated roadways, that doesn't necessarily mean more mountain bikers. Does Holland, for example, have proportionately more mountain bikers than the UK? I don't know.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favour of more people taking up cycling - and potentially mountain biking - but I think it's a different issue to the footpath thing though obviously there are overlaps.

For me anyway, mAx_hEadSet's arguments are more compelling. And yes, I guess I am seeing it from the slightly narrow perspective of being a committed mountain biker, but then to be fair, this is primarily a mountain biking forum albeit with more general leanings, so I don't think that's entirely unreasonable.

BadlyWiredDog - Member
'Maybe I have more faith in English standards of decency than you".
Have you travelled on the tube recently or ventured inside the M25 while driving a car? ...

As for the M25, I thought the other drivers were fleeing a Zombie Apocalypse, so I forgave them.

I guess all I'm saying is that simply legalising footpaths won't necessarily make a huge difference here and that it's not the same as 'More cycle routes particularly away from busy traffic' although in some cases, of course, it will be.

'won't necessarily' is a rather debate high hurdle to mount - however following the 'gateway activity' principle, then the probability is that it will - also, given the above points on connectivity, then even if it didn't, it would significantly improve conditions for all existing off-road cyclists by allowing them to link together the existing bridleway network, so its a win for us regardless.

If however we do accept the data above on 'what people say would make them more likely to cycle' and then think about ways to achieve it, then the 'bang for buck' of permitting access to the tracks that already physically exist as part of the footpath network is unbeatable, especially compared with the current process and expense involved in creating any new routes or rights of access (bearing in mind here the fact that at the moment whether a legal right exists to cycle on a PRoW does not necessarily relate to any factors of safety, suitability or reasonableness).

And even if lots of people cycle for transport or family recreation on, say, gravel tracks or segregated roadways, that doesn't necessarily mean more mountain bikers.

again, [i]necessarily [/i]- however more people cycling can only be a good thing for society if we look at issues like health, obesity, wellbeing etc. - data mining is complex between surveys like MENE SPANS and WORS, but certainly seems to suggest a higher level of off-road cycling participation in Scotland, and shows the same trend across the board that off road/mountain biking retains a younger age profile than road cycling, more likely to be of working age, have kids - off-road also more likely to take place in the countryside and more likely to spend money on the trip (both if which i suspect we already knew, but it underlines the importance to the rural economy of expanding off-road rather than just road cycling.)

rocketman - Member

I wouldn't broadcast anything around Cannock after some disappointing word-of-mouth experiences where good but fragile trails were completely destroyed literally in a matter of days

Much prefer to recreate them. The process is subtle - even though the trail has gone it takes a lot to eradicate the line the ground. I follow it as close as I can and soon someone else has had the same idea. Within a week or so the new line is rideable

After a while others will move timber and debris aside and the trail emerges. Not 100% as it was but pretty close

Then someone Stravas it and the process repeats itself

One of the issues is not about clique or exclusivity, but the trail itself - with the best will in the world, these trails won;t stand up to heavy or unsympathetic (yahoo but rear wheel skids and POW! turns) use. I've seen a number of 'secret' trails wrecked where traffic/fame builds to a point of unsustainability. I've also seen them wrecked by idiots straightlining them and people carving inexplicable and inexcusable (for anyone other than a rank novice) breaking ruts.

Our areas differ, but digga +1

We can discuss data, existing usages, etc for eternity, and not come to a conclusion.

It's too complicated/confusing.

The answer is to cut the Gordian Knot, and simply look at what works elsewhere.

And that answer is open access.

Get that and everything else falls into place.

I couldn't be arsed reading all this but the bits I have read are (as often the case) focusing on us, the enthusiast mountain biker.

There is an increasing number of people who own a mountain bike but are not enthusiasts. These people (sweeping generalisation) do not know how to read a map and do not care to learn because they do not know the written and un-written rules of countryside access, they also take no consideration of the ground conditions because mountain biking is inherently a sport where you expect to get mucky. They assume that they can go wherever whenever, this assumption is backed up by seeing tyre tracks on the ground.

What the non-cycling public see as a mountain biker is changing and its changing fast. With these changes come pros & cons. If we the enthusiast do not manage the cons then we will ultimately we will come off worse.

I don't think I'd really give two hoots if we gained official access to footpaths as I tend to ride popular areas at unpopular times and prefer to gamble on a random track spotted from Google earth than on the same well worn loop. Any objections I have come across I have attempted to explain the situation and interact with people instead of being a smart arse or abusive.

I think enthusiasts will see very little change as they are already reading maps and riding footpaths and I think non-enthusiasts will venture comparatively small distances from existing routes.

I've kind of lost my train of thought now and forgot what my point was.

I've kind of lost my train of thought now and forgot what my point was.

I think it was about not really giving a stuff about footpath legalisation, probably... in a slightly selfish way. And there are other, 'non-enthusiast' people following you around because you leave tracks and they don't know about legalities and ground conditions. And if you legalise footpath riding, they'll still follow you round, so, erm, it won't make any difference really.

Meanwhile in Scotland, folk spend all day filling out multiple choice survey questions with the result that open access is a raging success.

BadlyWiredDog - I think it was about not really giving a stuff about footpath legalisation, probably... in a slightly selfish way.

And there are other, 'non-enthusiast' people following you around because you leave tracks and they don't know about legalities and ground conditions. And if you legalise footpath riding, they'll still follow you round, so, erm, it won't make any difference really.

Meanwhile in Scotland, folk spend all day filling out multiple choice survey questions with the result that open access is a raging success.

I think it was... I'd like to see better access even though it wont really make much difference to me and I think it'll only make a small / localised difference overall.

BadlyWiredDog - I think it was about not really giving a stuff about footpath legalisation, probably... in a slightly selfish way.

One difference would be 'track' maintenance reqts - some people don't have the phsyical ability to lift bikes(etc) over stiles/kissing gates etc etc which are allowed on footpaths, if there was a law change and that altered what sort of 'gates' could be used on footpaths I can see that helping certain people extend the set of paths they can use.

I think podge describes the great majority of mountain bikers sadly - I posted the picture above as I find it completely inconceivable that someone would behave in this manner and sling an old inner tube up a tree in a gem of a place like the Garburn Pass, I doubt whoever it was on their own so there was probably a group that thought this was acceptable behaviour and this is somewhere where access already exists.

I am a 'country solicitor' in mid Wales and have been out in the hills on foot and by bike (and I ride cheeky trails) for 30 plus years and was going to try and give some sort of balanced response but quite frankly I can't be bothered anymore - there are always going to be grey areas on certain pieces of land and I can think of some places where there would be fantastic opportunities for adding to the cycle network of paths and trails but the tube up the tree reminds me that wider / open access is generally a bad thing for my clients and is to be opposed at all costs - why should our hobby make my clients' ability to run what is already a very regulated business one iota more difficult.

towzer - One difference would be 'track' maintenance reqts - some people don't have the phsyical ability to lift bikes(etc) over stiles/kissing gates etc etc which are allowed on footpaths, if there was a law change and that altered what sort of 'gates' could be used on footpaths I can see that helping certain people extend the set of paths they can use.

There is nothing in law that states that even though cycles have access to Bridleways that the land owner must make provisions for them. I cant see this changing and for public relations I don't think it should. If someone came to me and said not only are those sodding hooligans on 2 wheels going to be given access to my land by law but I have to make sure I replace all my gates, stiles and other bits to accommodate them I'd be mighty cheesed off.

Nipper99 - I think podge describes the great majority of mountain bikers sadly - I posted the picture above as I find it completely inconceivable that someone would behave in this manner and sling an old inner tube up a tree in a gem of a place like the Garburn Pass, I doubt whoever it was on their own so there was probably a group that thought this was acceptable behaviour and this is somewhere where access already exists.

Unfortunately I think that tube could have easily been put there by a disgruntled walker to emphasise / influence their point. Neither side of the argument are squeaky clean. Your assumptions about them being in a group are odd, I ride mainly by myself and have been known to accidentally drop a water bottle or innertube, its alarmingly easily done.

why should our hobby make my clients' ability to run what is already a very regulated business one iota more difficult.

Oh and my earlier post wasn't meant to be a harsh judgement on other mountain bikers, I just meant to point out that some people dont care, not through selfishness but because they really do not know any better.

BadlyWiredDog - Member
"There is one fact - open access works in Scotland and the Scandinavian countries."
...Where there's a far lower population density than many popular areas south of the border. It might work, it might not, but just because it works (mostly) in Scotland doesn't necessarily means it's be the same in, say, the Peak District or South Downs.

I see this argument raised all the time, and once you start looking into it, there's more than a whiff of bollocks about it.

The Edinburgh area has 1,786 people per km². Here are some photos from a mountain biking trip up the way the other week, using a route that's been uploaded as a GPX and widely publicised.

Taken 25 miles away from the city:

[img] [/img]

16 miles away:

[img] [/img]

6 miles away:

[img] [/img]

The bottom line is, outside areas that are a short distance from car parks, and honeypots like the Lakes, people barely use the countryside for recreation any more. We saw far more people out walking on this trip than we have on comparable trips to Wales.

I see this argument raised all the time, and once you start looking into it, there's more than a whiff of bollocks about it.

I think it's reasonable to question whether just because something works in Scotland, it'll work equally well elsewhere. I didn't say it definitely wouldn't work, I just wondered about it.

I'm not sure that your pics prove anything much at all btw. They're the visual equivalent of giving an opinion and then writing FACT after it, fact... 😉

They're not cherry picked, if that's what you mean. I've got about a hundred photos from that trip and none of them has another trail user in them. We saw other people, sure, but nobody got in each other's way.

Incidentally, the population density of Snowdonia is 47 people per km². The population density of Powys is 25 people per km². If you're going to argue that open access won't work in certain areas because the population is too dense, surely the reverse applies in sparsely populated areas?

I'm just saying nicely that putting up a bunch of pics of a quiet trail isn't really objective proof of anything except that the particular trail you were using was quiet. I'm sure you could, for example, wander around the City of London early on a Sunday morning and take a bunch of pics showing deserted streets, but it's not exactly definitive proof that London is a quiet city with no congestion issues.

Equally, I could stick up loads of pics from the Peak District showing either that it's completely deserted because there are no people in the pics or that it's completely overrun by hordes of ramblers. They're just a moment in time aren't they, not really proof of anything much except how things were through the viewfinder of that camera at a particular instant. And then there's Photoshop... just saying 🙂

And as I said above, I think it's worth considering that population density might be a factor in the effectiveness of open access, but equally there are going to be other things in the mix too - local culture, landowners etc.

There's no way of proving that it will or won't work south of the border with any certainty, the only way of doing that would be to introduce it, which I hope happens eventually. Anyway...

BadlyWiredDog - Member
I'm just saying nicely that putting up a bunch of pics of a quiet trail isn't really objective proof of anything...

It's pretty convincing if it's next to a major city and you're not dealing with an inveterate liar.

There's no way of proving that it will or won't work south of the border with any certainty...

It's a fairly logical supposition.

I'm sure you're right 🙂

epicyclo - It's pretty convincing if it's next to a major city and you're not dealing with an inveterate liar.

I'm with BWD on this bit. The Peak is supposedly the 2nd most visited National Park in the world. On a sunny bank holiday weekend you could get pics of it looking like chaos but 10 minutes walk up a hill and you could get a pic looking like its empty.

Stanage is a perfect example, yes its a nice place with a nice view but the fact that it is surrounded by 5 car parks means it gets busy. Froggat edge is only a few miles away and only has 2 car parks. The location is just as nice and the views are just as good but its never as busy as Stanage.

I'd be interested to know how old people were in here before they realised they were dong wrong?

I used to bash around the tracks near my house and further a field with my dad and then with my school mates. It simply never occurred to us we were doing wrong. You didn't ride some paths as they were rubbish or muddy or had too many stiles but not because they were footpaths. It was late teens before I got my head around OS maps and then came the baggage of knowing I was doing 'wrong'.

As long as kids can't read OS maps the future of mountain biking will be fine.

As long as kids can't read OS maps the future of mountain biking will be fine.

That made me smile.

dong wrong

And so did that.

Serious answer though - I only found out when people I met on the trails told me I shouldn't be there. That happened a lot!

I've been reading maps since I was about 8 thanks to the Cubs and a dad who was a Scout leader. I probably took up mountain biking at about the same time so I think I've always known but with that I've also always known its not illegal, only recently have I looked into its actual legal status.

thepodge - Member
,,,Stanage is a perfect example, yes its a nice place with a nice view but the fact that it is surrounded by 5 car parks means it gets busy. Froggat edge is only a few miles away and only has 2 car parks. The location is just as nice and the views are just as good but its never as busy as Stanage.

That's a good illustration of what happens when you have restricted access, you get concentrated use.

There's bugger all carparks at the trails I ride because they're simply trails, not specific recreational tracks. Also I generally don't need to use a car to get to somewhere I can ride because I can ride any trail from the edge of town. Truly open access is wonderful. 🙂

...and another thing. It's not just newcomers.

Whilst everyone here may be riding cheeky, I know reasonably keen long-term mountainbikers (keen cyclists certainly) who don't, not liking disapprobation and breaking rules, and so sticking to bridleways. Which is a shame.

Its got nothing to do with restricted access, they are both easy to get to on foot, by bike and by car but there is far less parking at Froggatt so far less people visit.

I was just trying to highlight that two very similar places with very similar access, both right next door to the same city that are just a few miles apart have two very different outcomes.

If you rode Froggatt and I rode Stanage we'd have conflicting anecdotal evidence.

I think if cyclist stopped using the term cheeky they might get taken more seriously.

As long as kids can't read OS maps the future of mountain biking will be fine

I could read maps from an early age and between the ages of 16 and 30 was a proper bridleway square. I subsequently got stuck into real riding, hike-a-bike, nights etc and follow the cheeky rules, likewise I don't ride the legal slop trails in winter despite it being my right. Frankly the access laws are nuts in England and the only problem is dickheads be they on foot, horse or bike (I'll explicitly leave motorised out of it).

So I agree - ban the cubs and scouts (and dickheads).

There's bugger all carparks at the trails I ride because they're simply trails, not specific recreational tracks. Also I generally don't need to use a car to get to somewhere I can ride because I can ride any trail from the edge of town. Truly open access is wonderful.

That's amazing, there's nothing like that south of the border. Even here on the edge of the Peak District National Park I have to drive to a carpark and then ride. Do you have roads up there as well and are you allowed to ride them using a bike without booking in advance?

BadlyWiredDog - Member

I'm just saying nicely that putting up a bunch of pics of a quiet trail isn't really objective proof of anything except that the particular trail you were using was quiet. I'm sure you could, for example, wander around the City of London early on a Sunday morning and take a bunch of pics showing deserted streets, but it's not exactly definitive proof that London is a quiet city with no congestion issues.

OK, it's a crude illustration, but the point is that population density is a really poor predictor of how many other users you're going to meet on the trails. And wider access means more freedom to choose less crowded trails.

There's no way of proving that it will or won't work south of the border with any certainty

Is there any country where it hasn't worked? There have been some problems in Scotland, but I think they're more to do with the right to wild camp than with open access.