Yeah all these trails are impossibly difficult when wet, by foot or bike. It's the local rock-type. I'm not in favour of sanitisation, just avoiding them when not in condition.
very jealous.
Might have to do an 'early ride' on a weekend as it gets light at 4am :p
By random coincidence, me and lads rode around the mendips today. We took a few different routes than mentioned above, but a nice way to link it all together. All perfectly legal too. [url= http://app.strava.com/activities/58376486 ]http://app.strava.com/activities/58376486[/url]
Aha, I see that my mildly inflammatory comments have got the binary thinkers up in arms.
I'm pleased, because there is a genuine debate worth having here and I think it deserves closer scrutiny.
The point I'm trying to make, as Buzz so eloquently put it, is that you're not looking past the blind compliance of 'you're not allowed to be there'.
Why not?
Because of some right of access to do with droving sheep 1200 years ago says I can only go through the next field? The field thats identical to the one I'm in now? Err. Right.
How does a right of way lessen ones impact on the surroundings? Its preposterous to tie rights of access to the impacts you make on ones surroundings, the rights were established way before modern conservationism came along and were never established to protect poor farmer Fred's persian Lamas, or whatever.
Its a fatuous claim that farmers are custodians of the countryside - They make the countryside what it is as a byproduct of industrial scale food production and it has always been so. They are business men first. Farming and forestry are by far the most damaging activities in the outdoors.
Farmers don't want you in their fields for many reasons, not in the least because you might damage crops or scare animals. BUT - you can damage crops and scare animals just as easily whilst using a legitimate right of way, so, where is the sense?
There is none. Our RoW system is archaic, dysfunctional and not fit for purpose. As such, I choose to largely ignore it and operate to my own, which is based on impact.
Objectively, that may mean you binary thinkers assume I deliberately ride across farmers fields all the time, just to prove a point, but you'd be wrong.
By happy co-incidence the RoW network we now have, after centuries of use, is not half bad for bike riding on the Mendips, but there are gaps. Gaps that can be easily bridged by using footpaths (often to link more good footpaths together!), or by riding across a stretch of field (why would I otherwise want to ride through dull fields?)
At all times, I use my judgement as to what kind of impact I will cause - and I tell you what, hardly ever do I come to the conclusion that I will cause anything so deleterious that I must not ride there.
Velvet bottom is a good example. Its seen by many as sacrosanct, a footpath only, not to be messed with, because of the archaeological heritage associated with its former workings. I understand this. If the dirt jumpers got in there, they could have a field day on the gruffy ground and I would too,because it looks like great fun, but I know that kind of heritage is irreplaceable. So I ride the footpath. The footpath made of solid rock and slag where thousands of walkers boots have worn the surface soils away and erosion caused by my tyres is virtually non-exisitant.
I've rambled a little here, but I hope you see the point.
Ride with thought, see the reality, use your judgement and discard blind compliance.
In other words, don't ride like a dick.
'you're not allowed to be there'.
Why not?
Because you dont own it someone else does?
The world is not some sort of Utopia where we have the selfish right to do whatever we want
I`m not disagreeing about places like Velvet Bottom which is a track of slag and agree that there are many other lanes that would have taken horse drawn traffic years ago and should be rupps or boats.
What I do disagree with is using places where there is not row not even footpath or open access and know how pissed off farmers get by this
I take it you're anti right to roam then.
Kinder Scout anyone?
Littledoughall
All perfectly legal too.
...well, nearly...
Agent 😀
...well, nearly...
Whoops, I thought it was! Which bits aren't? The climb up Barton Drive was the only bit I wasn't sure about and was prepared to turn around, but it was double track the whole way up. Although we did walk the final bit through Hill Farm (coupled with a friendly wave from the assumed owner).
I'd also assumed that the stuff in Rowberrow was fair game as long as you didn't build stuff. There were some glum looking DH boys looking at some destroyed jumps.
Whether it is or isn't a ROW wouldn't change whether I rode it or not, more the circumstances surrounding that path. I like the 'don't ride like a dick' approach. If a farmer asks me to not to be somewhere, I'll happily oblige.
You got it! I think the guy who lives at the top of Barton Drive is a vet, apparently a good bloke (according to Ms AD's spaniel owning father).
Nice route, I might do something similar (and shorter!) tonight. Probably wont pedal up Warrens Hill though - never have, maybe never will!
Might need to investigate what's going on with the destruction in Rowberrow.
FC I imagine. They flattened stuff a year or two back as well.
It is the FC - they have put a very polite sign up, apologising for it! As far as I could see the new tracks in the open bit below the bird box trail and mendip magic have all had their jumps destroyed, not sure about other trails. I'm sure it will all be rebuilt once summer holidays start..
randomly I was talking to the bloke who owns a couple of hundred acres of woodland and fields near me (I know him, reasonably well) and he brought up people riding in his woods/fields, and his issues were:
If you can prove that people have been riding somewhere for twenty years a path can be created/reclassified, at this point the landowner ends up having to support these paths, and as it disrupts their day to day business it increases the cost of managing that piece of land. Which is bad especially in a business where profits are very tight, in part due to people being happy to buy products made by children or using substandard practices.
This can push a piece of land from breaking even, to losing money at which point it has to be sold off, as ultimately the people who own this land aren't charities. This then leads to the issue of who do they sell it to? As believe it or not, not many groups mtb/walkers/horse riders are willing to put hands into pockets to raises the thousands of pounds needed to buy land. So typically the land goes to developers
In his opinion he doesn't want everything turning into housing estates, paintball areas or landfill (all options he has been given, and turned down) so he is prepared to break even, but not lose money.
It will be interesting to see what happens when this generation of farmers die though, as of the few I know none of their children are prepared to work for free, so I should imagine over the next 40 years huge swathes of land will be getting sold off, which should make access interesting.
Just to give someone else's perspective, based on fact rather than assumptions; as everyone knows assumptions are "the mother of all **** ups" 🙂
So why should you care about riding over some else land? Well if you aren't careful, you could be a significant factor making that land unprofitable then the next generation will be riding through a landfill/housing estate. Mind you, why worry as *your* alright, and what difference does one person doing whatever they like make, eh.
Mmm a slags track.....
I understand that if you go north of the boarder then the world is a private utopia where you are allowed to roam where you will. Has it ruined the place?
I know this is stating the obvious, but you do realise that Scotland has a lower population, and land is in less demand?
It's entirely possible in Scotland to be somewhere, where there isn't a house in a several mile radius. That isn't the case pretty much anywhere in England, you need to compare apples with apples.
Just to be completely upfront, I do/have ridden footpaths; however I am under no delusion that it doesn't have any impact on anyone else. I just sometimes find the lack of honesty on this site astounding, if you are acting like a selfish dick, then at least own up to it, rather than hiding behind bullshit excuses.
The world is not some sort of Utopia where we have the selfish right to do whatever we want
Nice example of reductio-ad-absurdum Edric. Our situation is what we make it. There will be no change if we do not change. How is an act that causes no harm, selfish? How is a bicycle considered harmful, when walking a dog is not?
Scotland has a lower population, and land is in less demand?
Central belt has a far higher population density than Somerset, but the RtR laws apply successfully there.
I am sure if you pick very small pockets you can find exceptions however I wonder how much riding is done in the densely populated spots, compared to the more out of the way places. Personally I avoid riding in cities, especially if I can head out to national parks
Why not just own up, and admit it that you are riding this stuff because *you* want to, and it has nothing to do with some BS beliefs of you against the *man*.
Lots of people act in selfish anti social ways, why not just own up, and admit its all about *me*, and screw anyone else who gets in they way of doing whatever you want.
As long as you can live with the caveat, that it's OK for other people to treat you, your loved ones and property in the same way without complaint or else that's hypocritical.
"Lots of people act in selfish anti social ways"
So, as I think we've tried to explain, our actions are not anti-social. The word "selfish" means "Lacking consideration for others", and I think you can see that our actions are considered to avoid conflict and harm. [b]No.[/b]
"why not just own up, and admit its all about *me*"
Or is it more about "us" as bicycle riders asserting just freedoms. But indeed, I also choose to ride here for my own satisfaction. [b]Partially.[/b]
"screw anyone else who gets in they way of doing whatever you want"
No-one is screwed by our actions. And I always politely obey the instructions of the landowner when required. Our consideration, discreteness and politeness is why this is so rarely necessary [b]No.[/b]
it's OK for other people to treat you, your loved ones and property in the same way without complaint or else that's hypocritical.
If no harm is caused, I would have no moral reason to deny someone the freedoms they desired. Is this not the principle of "freedom"?
So get off our case 😉
Oh god, it's turned into one of those debates. I'm off out for a ride on the hills around Bath, where nearly ALL the tracks I'll go on are cheeky or footpaths.
And I'm quite happy in that knowledge, as is every other mountain biker in the city!
I have just moved to Bath i`m still trying to find all the legit stuff and link it together !
😀 😯
richc and Sciencofficer are actually just my sockpuppets
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
Rich, I think you've completely failed to spot that there is no link between a right of way and impact, be it negative or positive. RoW were not put in place to be protective of your farmer mate. Your entire argument lacks any credible foundation.
Do realise that in terms of breaking the law, you riding on a footpath is EXACTLY the same as me riding through afield with no track at all? Trespass is trespass. I can't fathom how you think this gives you any moral high ground.
Selfish? Of course. I ride for my own enjoyment, as I imagine you do, but don't assume that means I'm not inconsiderate of others. I just chose to do it in a more rational, risk based manner than you do.
Rich, I think you've completely failed to spot that there is no link between a right of way and impact,
Of course there is, just because you don't want it to be doesn't make it true! I explained in my earlier post what one possible impact is, and hence my farmers sometimes worry about it.
Or are you denying that paths can be classified/upgraded now?
I ride footpaths, and I know they are cheeky, and I know that it isn't my *right* to do so. I have no moral high ground, but I do object to people who do and think they are in the right, just because the system doesn't work as they want it to.
I do object to people who do and think they are in the right, just because the system doesn't work as they want it to
Fox-hunting?
When it was legal, did you object to the protesters?
Now it's illegal (criminally so), do you object to the hunters?
or vice-versa?
Rules changes because people change them.
Again, Kinder Scout trespass. Example of the above, well made, point.
Still, rules is rules, right? 🙄
Right, this is probably the best thread to ask this, hope you don't mind...
I'm trying to put a new route together as a bit of a variation from my usual Rowberrow/Blackdown loop. The bridleway that runs along the top of Cheddar gorge on the south side; is it much good to ride from SW to NE, descending to Blackrock? (I've ridden it the other way, which was great fun) And is it advisable to ride around 9.30am on a saturday?
If it is on both counts, what's the best way to then get back to Blackdown? There looks to be a bridleway heading towards Velvet Bottom which abruptly stops where the 3 footpaths converge. Ideally I'd like to head north from there to meet the bridleway that comes off blackdown. Possible?
The bridleway does stop at the junction of longwood valley /velvet bottom
I assume you mean the 'gorge walk' that goes past the view tower? It's a challenging climb climb in the dry and I'd not bother in the wet. At 09:30 you should be early enough, although climbing its pretty much ok anytime of day, since your speeds are low and people just gawp at you as you try to hustle over the techy bits.
Of the three footpaths the best one to get back up is the west Mendips way itself, which is the most westerly of the three. You can use it to make your way over to turnings and climb up 'potato fields'.
None of them are much cop really but they're handy for staying off-road. Velvet bottom up to Charterhouse is the most scenic of them.
