Forum menu
and compulsary third part insurance
isn't this a bit of a red herring ? How does the 3rd party injury toll caused by bikes compare to that of road vehicles ? 0.1% ?
In 14 years of biking I've hit one walker when we both dived into the same ditch. He was walking in the middle of the road when I came round a blind bend. No one was hurt. Oh, I also once splashed a girl's white jeans with mud.
Why do Calderdale / Todmordern types always think there riding is the best / cheekiest this side of all English / Welsh borders?
Is it just cuz thats where the mag is based and so the little northern industrial slaggy landscapes are forced onto everyone who buys the mag?
OOh, you rode a footpath. Get over yourself.
OK, so what are THE footpaths we should all ride then? I've always fancied the path along the top of the Roaches
"He never begrudged having a ROW across his land and in fact his young daughter - my now wife - used to sell drinks and home made cakes to passing walkers. However, he did expect people to observe the ROWs"
A very positive attitude [claps with delight]. But did he object to the odd cyclist using the FPs?
Why do Calderdale / Todmordern types always think there riding is the best / cheekiest this side of all English / Welsh borders?
in this case I think it may be true 🙂
Is it just cuz thats where the mag is based and so the little northern industrial slaggy landscapes are forced onto everyone who buys the mag?
FYI Calderdale is too steep for slag heaps, and at least when the sun shines can be quite idyllic. Just hope it doesn't rain or the gritstone will eat your bike ...
Scruff you've missed the point entirely.
But did he object to the odd cyclist using the FPs?
I must ask him. My guess is that few mountain bikers would have wanted to cross the field - it doesn't really link anything worth riding. He knows how much I love biking so I guess if he was still there he'd be fairly open-minded about it. Again I refer to sensitivity. 1 or 2 polite riders is one thing. A big gang of riders being "cheeky" is very different
The law is daft, but its eaiser to ignor it and ride sensitivly. I think any attempt to change it may take ages, cost money and possibly backfire.
So personally I shall continue to ride footpaths with a polite and sensitive attitude.
Leaving it as it is also means there is an little bit of added zest to riding cheeky. I like that sort of zest.
OK, so what are THE footpaths we should all ride then? I've always fancied the path along the top of the Roaches
It's good.
This is what I wrote back to Dave:
For me, trail use boils down to two separate but usually muddled issues: [b]access rights and impact[/b]. I don't give a stuff about access rights, they are historic nonsense. But I care a lot about impact: noise, distraction, erosion, damage and risk to other users. The impact guides my choice of trails.
I get the sense that "ramblers", as opposed to the majority of normal walkers, hate us. We disrupt their large groups and are visibly having more fun. Ramblers fought the law and won; they think that cyclists are just jumping on the bandwagon. But I see more people biking than hiking and horse riding combined these days. Is it time to flex our muscles, to get the law to acknowledge that [b]a bike is not a horse[/b]? Perhaps. But the politics are missing. "The Ramblers" are a serious lobbying group, whereas cycling groups are just not.
I think I'll politely, morally and sensitively continue breaking the law.
I don't even know what it is I ride!? if it's a path/trail/track of some description and looks interesting, then I'll ride it... if there's a walker or other user on there, I give way to them and say hello and smile, seems to work for me? But then I'm Aussie and don't know the 'rules' or 'laws' of this foreign country! 😆 Am I a bad man?
When I used to razz around the woods on a bike when I was eight, the notion of what a BW bridleway, or footpath was pretty much anathema to me, I went largely where I wanted, having said that a big **** off sign saying No Access was enough to put me off. As an aside, coming across other bicycle tracks was a rare thing those days.
Nowadays things are different, I still ride largely where I want, but I'm careful to do it only at certain times of the day, and on certain days of the week, not because I'm worried about breaking the law, it's about give and take, I'm luckily in the position where I can choose the time of my riding to not coincide with the walkers who perhaps have a limited time to enjoy the countryside, and wouldn't appreciate me coming at them at 20mph plus.
we live on a small island, there's lots of us, we need to have empathy with others' POV.
I think I'll politely, morally and sensitively continue breaking the law.
I'm not sure what law you think you're breaking.
I think I'll politely, morally and sensitively choose where to ride. That will include bridleways, footpaths and trails on the ground not marked by OS or definitive map.
"footpaths and trails on the ground not marked by ... definitive map"
For this we have no access rights and risk charges of trespass. This is the law-breaking I'm referring too.
Sod cheeky trails. I wish cities in the UK were like the town I live in in Sweden Lund where the bike is seen as one of the most important modes of transport and the cycle routes are so good that my 4 year old can cycle own his own bike to nursery (2 miles). Most of the pavements are dual use and they spend a lot of money on bike facilities.
Riding about on muddy footpaths is a bit further down the line in my opinion.
Higgo that's a good link and worth everyone reading. But it does not refute that the charge of trespass exists.
As I understand it, one cannot be 'charged with' trespass, one is 'sued for' damages arising from trespass.
So what do we think is the best way of moving this issue forward then?
Campaigning to get cyclists allowed on prow footpaths?
From what i have read it seems to be nigh on impossible to get a fp changed to a bridleway.
I dont think we "risk" much when we risk trespass. The landowner would need to get our name and address and press charges for damage to the land.
As long as the trespasser is not posing an immediate threat, they cannot be removed by force. It is usually illegal to arrest a trespasser and hold them on the property until law enforcement arrives as this defeats the purpose of allowing them to cure the trespass by leaving.
Common Misconceptions:
(Taken from http://www.trespasslaw.co.uk/common_misconceptions.html)
Trespassers Will Be Prosecuted:
It is quite a common misconception that a land owner can or can have a trespasser prosecuted. Trespassers cannot be prosecuted, Trespass is a civil not criminal matter. Signs that read, “Private property – Trespassers will be prosecuted” are bluff and nothing else.
Trespassers can be forcibly ejected:
We have all heard the story of the old man carting children off his lawn by holding onto their ear! Although this may have been common practice some years ago, unfortunately this is no longer the case. While you are allowed to use reasonable force to eject a trespasser, the definitions for reasonable force are far from clear.
If as a land owner you do forcibly eject an individual or an individuals possessions or both you are leaving yourself liable for criminal proceedings for undue force and damage.
I’m Entitled To Compensation:
This is true; you are also entitled to compensation for the damage caused by chewing gum on the sole of your shoe. Seeking compensation for random trespass is in practice not worth the time. Try to calculate the actual loss incurred by a landowner; some grass seed, maybe the water to make said grass seed grow, raking of any gravel pathways that have been disturbed – as you can see, this will not total very much.
The Police will eject a trespasser for me:
Calling the police as a landowner is pointless. The police will occasionally attend trespass matters, however this is usually to ensure that the landowner only exercises reasonable force in the ejection of the trespasser and is therefore for the trespassers benefit, not the land owners.
There are a number of reasons for this:
•As mentioned, it is a civil matter and is not a police officers duty
•In removing the trespasser they may injure them leading to a claim by the trespasser
•The trespasser may complain as the police have acted inappropriately (asserting state authority in a civil matter)
Repeated or Ongoing Trespass
If this is an ongoing, repeated or nuisance trespass, there are things that can be done, however please remember these are Civil proceedings, not criminal (YOU Vs. John Jackson not The People or The Crown vs. John Jackson) please see the menu to the left.
I dont see that happening in the real world. Carry on Cheeky, with a sensitive approach.
one is 'sued for' damages arising from trespass.
Indeed, you have no right of passage by bicycle on a right of way designated as a footpath. You can be asked to leave, you may be liable for any damage you've caused, but that is usually negligable and not worth attempting to recover.
So don't needlessly damage property, don't ride through a SSSI, and don't run school groups down. Simples.
"'sued for' damages arising from trespass"
OK I accept that correction.
Oh and if you want to email Dave with suggestions, opinions or just a good old 'Go on my Son!'
Dave at Singletrackworld
is his email.
[i]SFB: I was once warned off annoying the farmer on London Road by Chipps but of course I took no notice, and it's since been pointed out the rock garden and Stoodley Pike are a common and he's only a tennant[/i]
However, that farmer owns the land either side of the hill (and the land (and therefore the permission) that the permissive bridleway runs down on (the Penny Steps)) - and he has the right to object to the creation of the bridleway that the Calderdale ROW people are trying to get created from Cragg Vale over to the top of the penny steps.
What GEDA said.
GEDA's comment is very good but that would involve a full infrastructure change in many cities therefore costing millions. Letting people ride a muddy path would cost way less and be of interest to most on here.
What is going to happen is that someone rides very fast into someone on a footpath, the daily mail get a hold of it and they try to ban mountain bikes on bridleways as well.
For the cycle way stuff you have to start somewhere. Like all new developments must have cycle ways and or pay for cycle facilities to get to the said area. Most suburban footpaths are not used so could be easily converted to dual use.
I [i]think[/i] Wors is referring to Geda's earlier comment about 'respect for the land' not his comment about cycle paths in Lund.
Coincidentally, I'm also in Sweden today (Sodertalje) and do a fair bit of running while I'm here. I just head out into the woods in the edge of town and follow random paths, very much in the 'do not disturb, do not destroy' style. I've only been biking here a couple of times - borrowed a colleague's spare bike - and it's much the same. We just rode on paths and enjoyed ourselves.
The CTC has a very good document on this matter. I don't know how they are moving the debate along though or if this just sits on their website.
As stated previously in this thread it's about taking care. The big problem with open access of bike to all footpaths would be on paths like the South west coastal path which is place is very narrow and steep, hence good MTBing but would be dangerous for walkers if cycling was openly allowed. This is where I think the CTCs idea has some good ideas with a graded system.
Using the current system all footpaths should be considered bridleways (as if you had a horse you would ride along a path if you had one in ye olden times) and the exception be footpaths rather than the other way around as it currently is.
The big problem is that law always has to work to the lowest common denominator, and while many will be reasonable the will always be the idiots say bombing along a narrow section of the SWCP as in my example during the height of summer.
However, that farmer owns the land either side of the hill (and the land (and therefore the permission) that the permissive bridleway runs down on (the Penny Steps))
indeed? But as I've pointed out before, any strategy (appeasement?) that relies on solidarity between all mountain bikers is doomed to fail because we're too heterogenous. And it smacks too much of "jam tomorrow" 🙁 Some of us may not live that long...
A lot of this discussion focuses on "footpaths". This can mean different things to different people (i.e. the RoW definition of a FP, or paths that aren't ones where biking is permited/tolerated etc). Personally, I'd like a right of access to all suitable tracks / paths / footpaths / trails / roads etc.
I'm not advocating a right to roam over any surface, wherever it might be.
However, I generally agree with some folks comments here that the likelihood of meaningful change is very low for all sorts of reasons. Not apathy or defeatism, just realism in trying times.
I struggle with the whole 'cheeky trail' thing...why..because i see the damage being done to bridleways in the Dark Peak area by motox riders and green laners and so if I use a 'cheeky trail' I see myself as no better than them and I'd like to think I am a little more considerate
You know where this debate may get interesting?
Over on the Ramblers Forum...
http://www.ramblers.co.uk/forum/
OK, it's generally very quiet but a debate like this might bring all sorts of people out of the woodwork!
I have to say actually, most people on here have been very sensible - the usual common sense approach of softly softly, a bit of discretion about what paths are used when and by how many and there's no (or very little!) conflict. 🙂
It's pretty much the approach that I take when I ride - I've got no problems using footpaths when the opportunity presents itself.
No spoiler in the thread title? I haven't read it yet!
But I'd like access all areas but with a code of conduct for all users be they bike, horse or foot
"so if I use a 'cheeky trail' I see myself as no better than them"
Not at all. Avoid muddling legality with impact. Your erosion and noise impact is similar to a pedestrian; theirs is not.
We had this situation on the Mendip recently: there's been some moaning about all the additional MTBers eroding the singletrack over the years - fair enough. But this was put in perspective when 4x4ers invaded [u]once [/u]last November causing orders of magnitude more surface damage.
Go ride them without guilt.
There are a few papers out about erosion of foot vs bike wheels. Many report the same or less damage by bikes that by foot. However the latest paper I casually skimmed drew teh logical conclusion the MTBing has too broad an application to place it above or below hiking in terms of erosion. Just "riding along" has less erosion than walking but jumping, skidding e.t.c has more. Increased usage by whatever means also increases erosion obviously. Horse riding erosion is another matter.
Searching for the paper now will post link if I can find it.
Lifes to short not to.
Riding cheeky is fine if you have a sense of responsibility:
After the Boggies little midsummer Sunday jaunt up to Stoodly Pike, I was stopped several times by local walkers, who made their feelings clear in no uncertain terms.
Basically Simon, I'm sure you're a lovely chap and you have been very helpful with route advice whenever I've asked, but please don't come here, crap in our swimming pool then leave the locals to clear up your metaphorical mess.
(And as you are the very vocal figurehead of the Boggies on this public forum, I have no hesitation in referring to them as 'your group' BTW).
I'm in a mountaineering club which organises weekly walks, throughout the year.
We have many older members in their 60's and 70's, part of the first generation to enjoy the benefits of Benny Goodmans' work.
They have been out actively campaigning for access and enjoying the countryside, skiing, climbing, running & walking all their lives - mass MTBing is a very recent phenomenon to them. The selfish among us, the ones who think it fine to blast round the honeypot walking routes at high speed on a Sunday in large groups do nothing to help reassure them that we can coexist with them out on the trails.
(And if you think these ignorant idiots are a figment of their senile brains, try walking from the Ladybower pub up to Fairholmes car park on a Sunday in summer).
I'm trying to get members of our club to give MTB'ing a go, but it's not an easy process. I've organised several rides, the last around 'Hit The North' country and the next one will be a week on Sunday around some of the quieter Calderdale bridleways (e-mail in profile if anyone wishes to attend, but it will be a bimble designed to show beginners that MTB'ing can be a fun and exciting way to see more of the landscape thay know and love, rather than a tech-fest!).
Attendance is low at the moment, but getting better all the time, and attitudes are slowly but surely changing, especially as more younger MTB friendly people join.
These are the people who will be consulted on trail access. We really need them on board.
Cycling has become massively more popular over the last few years, but the majority of non cyclists I speak to are still very 'anti'.
Personally, I don't think we've reached the tipping point yet where a mass tresspass would gain the sympathy and support of the majority of the non cycling population - I don't think we have to wait 600 years for this to happen - one more good British TDF result, greater coverage in the media (a mainstream TV cycling show, even a one off would help) and another medal haul by Team GB in 2012 should swing public opinion our way far enough for a mass tresspass to work to our benefit.
If one is organised before then, I would attend, but with reservations as to whether it would cause more harm than good.
Dave's article in the mag is very thought provoking and I pretty much agree with it.
I live in Calderdale myself, it's the reason I moved here, but I don't ride with the STW massif, so probably don't know half the 'cheeky tech' in the area, and don't think I'd be able to ride it if I did. 😀
I do ride some of the many quieter local footpaths though and and having looked at the the 'Cheeky Trails' code of ethics, [url= http://www.cheekytrails.co.uk/ethics.htm ]link. [/url] find that they pretty much coincide with my own views.
In fact, if they were written in slightly more diplomatic manner, I'd be happy printing them off and handing a copy to my fellow club members any complaining walkers I encountered, as a statement of intent.
but please don't come here, crap in our swimming pool then leave the locals to clear up your metaphorical mess.
the trouble is I will, and so will many others. You may consider it to be yours but non locals just think of it as a national resource just like any other place. We know nothing of the spats between the local people over their precious things and they mean nothing to us.
We know nothing of the spats between the local people over their precious things and they mean nothing to us.
Simon, are you really daft enough to think that the behaviour of one group doesn't reflect on all of us?
For every person who sees you riding and thinks 'I'd love to have a pop at that', others are looking and thinking you're a bit of a knob with no sense of discretion.And I only used Stoodley Pike and your ride as an example, because it's one I have direct experience of.
Nothing in this valley is mine, apart from temporary ownership of a small house and a very old Daewoo, but I'd like cyclists to be able to enjoy it for many years to come
Simon, are you really daft enough to think that the behaviour of one group doesn't reflect on all of us?
I'm daft enough not to believe in collective responsibility for the actions of people I don't know.
Wherever I ride, most people are friendly, some tight lipped and a few shouty. We all prefer to avoid confrontation, so locals are far more likely to moan to you, who is known to them, than some possibly abusive stranger.
erosion is irrelevant.
you should see the damage done by Sheffield council in the name of 'maintenance'...
Buzzlightyear - Member
there's been some moaning about all the additional MTBers eroding the singletrack over the years - fair enough. But this was put in perspective [s]when 4x4ers invaded once last November[/s] the last time it rained, causing orders of magnitude more surface damage.
We know nothing of the spats between the local people over their precious things and they mean nothing to us.
Jesus. Brant was right.
Wherever I ride, most people are friendly, some tight lipped and a few shouty. We all prefer to avoid confrontation, so locals are far more likely to moan to you, who is known to them, than some possibly abusive stranger.
The way I read that is that you appreciate that your actions are likely to bring bad feeling which will be vented on approachable locals. Bit selfish no?
Quiet descreet (ab)use of footpaths by locals who know the area well enough to know where confrontation is likely and where is truly appropriate for bike use is one thing, but highly visible large groups who don't know the area as well and are from outside of the area so more likely to ride even if the conditions are not suitable for sustainable riding to make their journey worthwhile is a very different matter.
I've got a few local footpaths and in some cases non rights of way that I ride but as I know and drink with the land owners I'm more likely to be given a half dozen eggs than a clip around the ear when I go that way. I'm not obvious about it as I would hate for my actions to encourage others and abuse the current non spoken arrangement.
The way I read that is that you appreciate that your actions are likely to bring bad feeling which will be vented on approachable locals. Bit selfish no?
I have no idea what the likelihood is between 0 and 100%. I suppose there's a balance between my selfishness in occasionally visiting and their selfishness in wanting to keep it all for themselves 🙂