[Closed] cheeky trails

I see pissing off pissable-off people as a vocation

Yes, we'd noticed that 🙄

The trouble is, after you've come and gone leaving a trail of pissed-off people behind you, some of those people may have to be placated to stop it rebounding on the rest of us.

Not that you care, because you've come and gone.

Eg. the Stoodley Pike example upthread.

+1

Whatever you do you will find someone who wont like it. So do it with that in mind, but do it sensitivly and you will only piss off a minority. That minority wont be swayed by any rational reasoing, they are always pissed off.

Ride on by with a polite wave. Dont go rocking the boat, our actions as individuals do actually affect the rest of the mountain biking community. But bear in mind its only a small minority who will ever be bothered that your on a FP.

Very small numbers of riders can often go on by un-noticed. Big groups will annoy people. That seems plain common sence. Legal or not. Dont swim up hill.

Look at the voluntary agreement on Snowdon of a good example of give and take + sensitivity = access for both walkers and riders. Of course, its a BW, but being rational and sensitive means a we can still ride it without mowing down walkers and getting banned.

like they were 25 years ago before mountain biking became a trendy way to show off your wealth

That sounds like you have a rather big chip on your shoulder...

No there are just to many go getters with a bad attitude riding around who think they can act the way they do in the office out in the hills

There have always been tw@s riding mtbs. It's just that as mtbing's become more popular there are numerically more of them about.

No there are just to many go getters with a bad attitude riding around who think they can act the way they do in the office out in the hills

that is definitely SFB!! lol.

Lets get it straight Cheeky = illegal calling it something else doesn't change what it is.

But it's not illegal... I think you need to do a little light reading.

Let's get this straight, Edric your wrong.

As a sometime lurker and occasional poster on here, I do find this debate interesting...

I think the whole thing about is it legal or not legal isn't really that relevant...

I must admit that when I first started biking off road, (some time ago now as I am an ole git) I used to go anywhere because nobody seemed to care... then it seemed to become unacceptable to ride anywhere other than a bridleway BOAT etc. as the sport became more popular and there were more and more folks out there, so I stuck with those routes.

The whole concept of a 'cheeky trail' is somewhat new to me, since I started coming on here. I just try and keep to allowed routes (in the main, ahem) and I thought that was what everyone did until I found out otherwise.

I agree that there are always people who get pissed off, and will do whatever you do, but surely we shouldn't be going out of our way to piss them off and thus create another anti-biking biggot for the future?

I am a mountain biker, a walker, a runner and a dog owner all of which can end up in confrontation, from time to time, with other folks out there who feel it is their right to do what they want and not have to co-exist with other people. We do have to expect that whatever we do out there, there will always be somebody who doesn't like it...

Surely antagonising folks is just going to do more harm than good in the longer term? or am I just missing the point? (wouldn't be the first time)

Norb

A group of 12 is not a small group and hardly being sensitive to other users. That's quite a group!

 

No I am not I just phoned Somerset County Coucil rights of way team .It is illegal to cycle on public footpaths and you are open to civil prosecution by the land owner for tresspass.The council could get involved if the path is damaged by your actions.

No I am not I just phoned Somerset County Coucil rights of way team .It is illegal to cycle on public footpaths and you are open to civil prosecution by the land owner for tresspass.The council could get involved if the path is damaged by your actions.

Yes you are. And so are they.

The reason it's civil prosecution is because it's not a criminal matter. Because it's not illegal.

The word illegal was used to me by the council not just by me to back up my earlier comment.Also if it's ok to ride footpaths can I put my tent on your front garden unannounced or would that be different?

You didn't really expect the *council* to know what they were talking about did you?!

There's several links in the thread about the actual legal definitions of it, it's one of those things that is very poorly understood by almost everyone and as a result there's a huge amount of false info been propagated over the years.

So fxck everyone especially farmers and ride what we like then? How arrogant can you get?

So fxck everyone especially farmers and ride what we like then? How arrogant can you get?

You've not read the article, have you?

There are bridleways which it would be irresponsible to ride after heavy rain, while a parallel footpath could be responsibly ridden. Responsibility and "legality" are not the same thing.

And so the same rider that rides FP's knowing that it's wrong, is going to turn back cause might cause errosion....riiiight

And so the same rider that rides FP's knowing that it's wrong, is going to turn back cause might cause errosion....riiiight

If they have the choice between a boggy bridleway and a dry footpath? I think they probably would.

The trouble is, after you've come and gone leaving a trail of pissed-off people behind you,

when I said that, I meant [b]people on here[/b]. I'm the soul of cheerful politeness on the trails :o)

The word illegal was used to me by the council not just by me to back up my earlier comment.Also if it's ok to ride footpaths can I put my tent on your front garden unannounced or would that be different?

it's not illegal; quite simply they are wrong.

no it wouldn't be different, in the eyes of the law, it would be trespass; ie not illegal.

however i think the point that needs to be made that it is different - some mountain bikes travelling a long a FP is quite different to gypsies setting up camp between the acacia and the birdtable!

How many folk on here would actually not ride track (legal or otherwise) if they thought they might make a mess of it? I'm not sure anyone is going to be THAT responsible are they?

Let's not kid ourselves here, we're after more fun first and if that helps the environment second then so be it?

We do have to expect that whatever we do out there, there will always be somebody who doesn't like it...

I don't want to sound like SfB BUT just because somebody gets pissed off isn't necessarily a good enough reason not to do it. Most things involve an element of compromise, you can't please all the people, all the time.

You have to go a little beyond whether "a few" people might be pissed off and look at whether that is outwieghed by the benefits of any change. Also, folks can get pissed off without it being right to be so. Sorry, words to convey this well are failing me a bit 😎

Edric, read into the subject a bit more - civil prosecution, so no police, court action needed by private individuals, legal fees etc etc and then quantify what financial value any "damage" and its rectification would amount to. A few shovels of dirt / gravel to make right? Peanuts. Worth taking to court? I doubt it.

They can't bring a class action against all MTBers and recover all damages because we are not one entity. A rider could only be taken to court for the damage they caused (and it could be proved that they were responsible for). I just don't think that's ever likely to happen. Has it?

As for the Council getting involved, I suggested that the most pertinent word there is "could" i.e. they aren't likely to. Certainly not in my experience.

Bear in mind as well that I'm talking about the legal / RoW definition of a footpath. In practice this might be a ribbon of dirt, a broad path, a farmers unmade road or even a metalled road. This is one of the ridiculous aspects of the RoW situation in England, it bears no relation to the suitablility of the path/trail/road for the type of use legally afforded.

And just to be crystal clear, I accept that not all paths/trails/roads will be suitable for MTB use. I'd even go so far as to accept that some existing ones where MTBers are permitted might not be suitable either. All I'd hope in such instances is that rather than loosing an existing right by reclassifaction efforts could be made to bring the path up to a reasonable standard, suitable for it's existing designation.

Finally, I've never allowed anyone to tar me with the behaviours of others. All this "representative of MTBers" is a bit of a smokescreen in my opinion. Just like I don't think all car drivers / dog walkers / horse riders are funkers, but there are individuals amongst the "group" who will behave like that. You don't legislate for the lowest common denominator, you do so for the majority.

[i]So fxck everyone especially farmers and ride what we like then? How arrogant can you get? [/i]

You're taking the wrong view.
I don't think anyone on here would go screaming through a flock of sheep whether it's a BW or FP. It's not about whether you should or shouldn't be on the trail, it's about how responsibly you behave whenever and wherever you ride.

Ride whatever you want in a responsible manner, treat the land and the property on the land (buildings/animals etc) with respect.

How many folk on here would actually not ride track (legal or otherwise) if they thought they might make a mess of it? I'm not sure anyone is going to be THAT responsible are they?

Let's not kid ourselves here, we're after more fun first and if that helps the environment second then so be it?

A lot of riders who use Ilkley Moor accept exactly that situation. There are legal sections to ride and there are "grey areas". It either gets ridden in the dry (or drier) times or when it's frozen (or several foot deep in snow).

So yes, some riders do adopt a sensible, sensitive and pragmatic approach.

If I've been cutting ruts with my mighty leg power up some mulchy climb I've either backed off the mighty (as if) power (as it's better technique - a spinning wheel isn't giving any traction) or sacked it and pushed.

Having bridleway on your land is more hassle than a footpath and allowing cyclists. Bridleways require gates that can be opened to allow horses through and a bridleway going through crops is required to have a wider path than a footpath.

[i]The word illegal was used to me by the council not just by me to back up my earlier comment[/i]

Then the person you spoke to knows as much as you.

[i]How many folk on here would actually not ride track (legal or otherwise) if they thought they might make a mess of it? I'm not sure anyone is going to be THAT responsible are they?[/i]

There's many areas around here I avoid in the winter or after long spells of rain because it really does ruin the trail for everyone.

Edric - I work for a council. When that funny little thing in the corner makes that noise and I have to pick it up and say hello, I say what I have to make the other person go away as soon as possible. We all employ the path of least resistance here :-}.

Ride where ever you want is not going to endear you to farmers if on a footpath though is it?

No there are just to many go getters with a bad attitude riding around who think they can act the way they do in the office out in the hills

that is definitely SFB!! lol.

this keeps getting more and more delusional :o)

So fxck everyone especially farmers and ride what we like then? How arrogant can you get?

how exactly do farmers become "fxcked" by the passage of a few bikes ? Are they very delicate ? Perhaps they should concentrate on their jobs and stop fussing about irrelevancies ? Aren't they usually in the office counting their EU subsidies for not doing anything ? (I speak from profound ignorance here)

Ride where ever you want is not going to endear you to farmers if on a footpath though is it?

Some farmers probably don't much like people walking on the footpaths either. or filling the country lanes with cars while driving somewhere when they need to get a tractor through.

Equally, some farmers probably don't particularly care, provided people aren't damaging crops or disturbing animals.

I don't want to sound like SfB BUT just because somebody gets pissed off isn't necessarily a good enough reason not to do it. Most things involve an element of compromise, you can't please all the people, all the time.

I'm having trouble explaining myself too 😳

I just can't see how any of this is going to bring about any change. In addition surely if it runs the risk of antagonising the average person who currently doesn't really hold an opinion, then how can that be a good thing?

There's a big difference to a sneaky footpath late at night on your own and a large group of a dozen riders, however friendly they might be?

Some people on here really seem to have no respect for the country or those who own and work the land .Can I suggest they stay in town and take up squash again?

There's many areas around here I avoid in the winter or after long spells of rain because it really does ruin the trail for everyone.

Likewise... but for two reasons... not only does it ruin the trail but it is also shyte to ride 😉

The point is that there are probably a fair number of responsible folks on here, but as for the masses out there, I'd be surprised if most of them gave two hoots... so do you think that most folks would abide by the 'Cheeky Code of Ethics' ? (which on the whole agree with by the way)

Just like the average folk in my local forest don't abide by the country code and leave it full of their crap on the day after a bank hol?

Well I come from farming background and know that most farmers are happy for people to access the land they farm. They don't really care if you on a bike, walking or horseback all they care is you don't damage crop, disturb the livestock any more than necessary and don't damage their property. Do that and they will wave a cheery hello, chat to you and offer you areas to ride. Very few really get pissed of if your responsible.

Likewise Norbert I avoid as it's awful to ride too.

Some people on here really seem to have no respect for the country or those who own and work the land. Can I suggest they stay in town and take up squash again?

Are you suggesting that those presenting a reasoned argument for wider access to the countryside are new to MTBing? I've only been riding for 19 years myself, though I never did play squash or anything.

You seem to be mistaking respect for the land with respect for decisions made by parish councils in the 1950s.

norbert colon - Member

How many folk on here would actually not ride track (legal or otherwise) if they thought they might make a mess of it? I'm not sure anyone is going to be THAT responsible are they?

Yup - many of us don't ride certain local trails when wet - partly because we know it would not be responsible and partly because thats what the various codes say.

In Scotland it is clearly about responsible acccess - a part of which is not upsetting other users. Some routes I will not use on a Sunny Sunday for this very reason - too many folk around

But why should a rider have to "poach" / tresspass a perfectly suitably (functionally) trail/path/road just because it has been arbitrarily given a RoW designation that doesn't allow them to use it? In such instances you don't even have to be particularly sensitive or sustainable in yoiur use, surely? Certainly in the situations I'm imagining such tracks wouldn't be susceptible to erosion from one or umpteen bikers.

That's one facet of the argument.

As for poaching all the sweet, sinuous, flowing, grin inducing stuff that might be designated Footpath or anything else that precludes riding. All I can say is that, if the majority of us are prepared to be sensible and behave appropriately, why can't we share with other users?

I'm not looking to blaze a random trail through the middle of crops and flocks. I don't particularly want to ride absolutely anywhere a wheel could possibly roll. However, I would love to have the legal right to share the use of all the appropriate trails/paths/roads throughout England with the other users that already have the right of access.

I still intend to poach cheeky stuff or whatever term anyone deems to give it in the meantime. I'll still argue that to make a big fuss about my use of "appropriate" trails/paths/roads is to waste their time and effort as well as mine. So much of this is all navel gazing but talking about it before and thinking about it more has helped me form what I think is a relatively well balanced and rational approach that doesn't just rest on the pillar of "it's illegal (whatever)" therefore you should never, ever break any law whatsoever.

In Scotland it is clearly about responsible acccess - a part of which is not upsetting other users. Some routes I will not use on a Sunny Sunday for this very reason - too many folk around

Which is all we would like too, I'm not even that bothered about open access just access to all current ROW would be nice.

Some people on here really seem to have no respect for the country or those who own and work the land .

I think you will find that is the opposite. Edric, you really do seem to have a big chip on your shoulder about this.

For the record, I stopped playing squash years ago.

Edric 64 - Member

Some people on here really seem to have no respect for the country or those who own and work the land .

I'm sure this is true but this does not explain why you think that one person riding a bike over a footpath will have a worse effect for a farmer than one person walking, or even walking and pushing a bike over a footpath. If this is not what you mean I apologies but it's the impression that you are giving.

Just out interest, do any of the hardline obedient people find it at all ironic or irritating that the bridleway legislation is almost entirely a historical accident, predating the existence of the mountain bike?

Edric - I think you've missed the point entirely chap, nobody is advocating trashing the countryside for anyone else. Just whether or not we should be allowed more access?

Sounds much more sensible in Scotland TJ

Is it helped by the fact that the countryside is less populated and hence there are less folk around in the first place? or is it just a case of giving people a chance to act more resposibly and think for themselves, means that they do?

I don't disagree with riding the odd cheeky trail and the whole debate helps me to try and form a balanced view of my own. But do we really think that riding the odd cheeky trail is going to help reverse the crap decisons of the 50's? I'm happy to enjoy the cheekiness, but don't think that I'm going to be helping the 'cause'... just as long as I don't hinder the process either 😉

[img] [/img]

this is a bridleway near my local trails - the next one along the motorway is a footpath.

EDIT: [url= http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=M0u&rls=com.google:en-GB:official&q=hadrian+way+southampton&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=Hadrian+Way,+Chilworth,+Southampton+SO16&gl=uk&ei=7-oYTIGpC4Pu0wTC7KjDCw&sa=X&oi=geocode_result&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CBUQ8gEwAA ]this is a footpath[/url]

Just out interest, do any of the hardline obedient people find it at all ironic or irritating that the bridleway legislation is almost entirely a historical accident, predating the existence of the mountain bike?

That's kind of what Dave's article is about.