Forum menu
I ride wherever I think I can get away with, I can’t be doing with individuals or organisations saying they have exclusive rights to control massive tracts of land.
Having said that, I strongly subscribe to the ‘don’t be a dick’ philosophy and try to be a good ambassador for mtbing when it comes to other users and farmland in use gets special consideration.
I do wonder if the best outcome in all of this is to keep the status quo. As it stands, I can and will ride most of the trails around me, but as many people have said already there's a level of courtesy and common sense required. A lot of the footpaths near me (Eastern Peak) are incredibly busy at times but fine at others. The fact that it's "cheeky" means riders are generally polite to the point of being obsequious (I know I am), and forethought is mandatory. Which is no bad thing.
If riding on footpaths is legally enshrined then the situation changes, and potentially you have a bunch of entitled, inexperienced riders taking the footpaths without really thinking about whether they're doing damage/upsetting people.
So while of course the current access right laws are nonsense, would a change in the law even be good for us? I'm not sure.
So while of course the current access right laws are nonsense, would a change in the law even be good for us? I’m not sure.
If only there was another country very close by that you could look at to see how freedom of access might operate in practice.
I rode thee full Grims Ditch from Nuffield down to Wallingford yesterday. Funnily enough i was 2nd out of 7 STW Strava group members, so shows that plenty of others don't mind a cheeky footpath too. 50% of the route is Footpath, 50% is allowed. I saw 3-4 walkers and we chatted happily through my panting.
It's one of/the best downhill for miles and miles, took me 17mins, with barely any uphill. I don't feel any guilt at all.
On the Isle of Wight there is very little distinction in practice between cheeky/ultra-cheeky/non-cheeky. It's fairly underpopulated by the standards of the south east and most of the trails are empty most of the time. In my experience everybody rides everything. Everybody walks everything, whether it is demarcated by the right type of line on the map or not. 99.99% of trail users and land owners are cool about it.
Some trails, usually on National Trust-owned land, are absolutely festooned with NO CYCLING signs and any mountain bikers I know generally give those a wide berth.
There are one or two notorious individuals in one or two spots who give you bother but for the most part it's live and let live.
The first commandment, don't be a dick, applies equally to cyclists and spoilsports. If you are going to be dick about it, either by the way you ride or the way you respond to people who do ride, then don't be surprised if you get some dickishness back.
We are indeed VERY lucky on the IOW.
Tennyson down is on of the places the NT don't like people riding, that gets ignored by me, especially as the is livestock grazing up there, doing far more "damage".
StefMcDef, you're talking about the Luccombe Loon aren't you!
^ The very fella! I think he actually sleeps in the hedge at the bottom of his garden waiting for mountain bikers like a troll under a bridge. No other explanation for the speed at which he appears.
There's also a red bobble-hatted auld bint from the Provisional Wing of the Ramblers' Association that used to get incredibly exorcised if she saw you riding somewhere she thought you shouldn't be. She'd turn puce and grab your handlebars to impede your progress. I think she might have succumbed to spontaneous combustion though because I haven't come across her for a couple of years.
There's also a load of NT land round about Hamstead and Bouldnor that I wouldn't bother cycling on because of all the NO CYCLING signs, even though the trails look pretty tempting. And the final frontier would be the grounds of Osborne House, but I don't know of anyone who's ever ridden in there.
Probably already been mentioned but riders posting videos of their local cheeky trails on Instagram, and naming the trails, is making things worse. Crapping on their own doorstep.
Probably already been mentioned but riders posting videos of their local cheeky trails on Instagram, and naming the trails, is making things worse. Crapping on their own doorstep.
+100
Stef, I've ridden around Hamstead and Bouldnor without any issues for years. Hamstead there isn't that much good stuff, Bouldnor used to be good, until it slipped down towards the sea. Never (knowingly) encountered the bobble hatted one, shame.
I've toyed with clambering over the wall at the end of the E Cowes prom, but you'd be going in blind with no idea of any of the paths. Perhaps a rekky on foot might be worth it?
Interesting on the positiveness towards cheeky trails. Just wondering what peoples thoughts are on riding something like the ard rock trails? i mean its just a cheeky trail isnt it? and how were you to know anyway?
I think that's the problem - what is a cheeky trail? Like i say above - it's unclear. But there's a distinct difference between trespass on private land i.e. ardrock stuff and 'poaching' a public footpath I guess to a lot of people.
^ Big Yinn - I only went to Osborne House for the first time last year when my folks were down visiting. The grounds are extensive and there are loads of nice windy-looking paths through woods down to the shore. Dunno how you'd get in, though, or whether they have bylaws which permit the peppering of passing peasants with buckshot. They probably do.
I've ridden down through Bouldnor to Yarmouth - think that's part of the coastal path? That's a great bit of trail but like you say, somewhat ruined by subsidence. But in the other direction towards Newtown there's a cracking looking descent, again down to the shoreline, then some boardwalky stuff in the marshy bits in the vicinity of Newton Creek. This is the bit that has all the No Cycling signs.
A local farmer (admittedly not in a very popular or good riding area) I know says he prefers mountain bikers over walkers crossing his farmland any day of the week. We are "quieter, pass through faster, shut the gates and don't have dogs with us" (pay attention to that last one "trail dog" owners). So therefore cause far less issues with livestock etc....
But in the other direction towards Newtown there’s a cracking looking descent, again down to the shoreline, then some boardwalky stuff in the marshy bits in the vicinity of Newton Creek. This is the bit that has all the No Cycling signs.
Yes its not bad that descent, I've ridden it a few times, you don't relise how much height you gain from Yarmouth. Its not particularly techy, but its a good blast, but then its boardwalky and access roads back to Hampstead road, plus I have been told off before now riding down there, but meh! I don't get why there is such an issue with cycling, its probably one of the least used bits of the coastal path, mainly because its pretty dull, I don't think I've encountered anyone along there.
I seem to remember reading that the current rights of way were only set in stone in 1949, and that land owners had a considerable influence on the classification. If you think about there should be roughly the same density of bridleways where ever you are in the country as locals all had to get about from A to B. As an avid map browser you find some areas are total covered in bridleways, others none at all. Makes no sense.
In my local area you hardly see a soul on any of the rights of way either on foot or bike, so a tiny number of extra cycles have little or no effect other than to help keep the tracks clear.
Round here quite a few BWs terminate conveniently where they reach the edge of shooting estates. So I have no qualms about riding the bit they nicked off us, where it still exists, and a some other bits by way of recompense for the inconvenience.
She’d turn puce and grab your handlebars to impede your progress
Never seen this happen. Has anyone ever given them what they 'deserve' back i.e. a slap round the chops, to put them off doing it again? Not when it's a little old lady, of course. I don't condone violence, but if someone is getting that far in your face, I could imagine it would lead to fisticuffs.....
As an avid map browser you find some areas are total covered in bridleways, others none at all. Makes no sense.
This was a consequence of Local Councils being given discretion as to what they put on the definitive map when RoWs were defined as Footpath or Bridleway. Some Councils designated bridleways where they thought the historical use and physical track warranted it; others called them all footpaths because it would be cheaper to maintain them.