Forum menu
Suns out....Yahooo... lets get cheeky trailing and discuss this in the pub later. Good old SB ? always baits, waits,hooks them and then plays his catch. 8)
norbert colon - MemberSounds 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 think its a bit of both
I think a completely different culture has grown up over the years. The mountaineers always used bicycles on the estate roads to get to the more remote munros so MTBers are seen as legitimate users of the countryside. MTBers on the whole tend to be responsible in where and how they ride as well. There is little history of problems getting access either on foot or by bike. Perhaps the amount of trail centres means that if people want fast blasts they can go to GT rather than tear up a bridleway - so the MTBers out in the hills tend to be riding slower and more courteously.
[i](third thoughts)[/i]
Bloody hell, I've read most of this but I've only skim read beyond this phrase:
What I don't do is speculate on the mental states of others.
This immediately put a word in my head.
Third hit from googling it is an article which starts:
Imagine - if you can - not having a conscience, none at all, no feelings of guilt or remorse no matter what you do, no limiting sense of concern for the well-being of strangers, […]. Imagine no struggles with shame, not a single one in your whole life, no matter what kind of selfish, lazy, harmful, or immoral action you had taken.
And pretend that the concept of responsibility is unknown to you, except as a burden others seem to accept without question, like gullible fools.
I recognise that I'm selecting a particular phrase from a particular post and responding to that in isolation. I also recognise that it might be taken as a massive personal slight, which I don't intend, which is why I’ve also selected only a certain part of the article, because the remainder says things I don’t want to say and don’t believe. I was just struck by the first quote and then struck by the second. I think that personality traits are shades of grey rather than black and white. Rather like sensible approaches to cycling on footpaths.
Its a shame some think we need rules when common sence and compromise would have done a better job. I will stick to being sensitive and polite while riding cheeky trails.
my 2 hour sunset ride last night involved lots of lovely footpaths, the only people i saw did give me a bit of a grumble, even though i was on a bridleway at the time.
ho-hum.
Yes, i stopped long before our paths crossed, i moved to the side, i said hello, patted their pooch (which wasn't on a lead despite it being june => nesting season), etc.
oh, and edric; none of the footpaths are on farmland, so no 'people who work the land' or their crops / animals were harmed or inconvenienced or trespassed against.
Edric 64 - MemberSome people on here really seem to have no respect for the country or those who own and work the land .
The farming related detritus i see littering the countryside round here suggests those who work it have no respect either.
In fact i'd say i have more respect because i view it as an natural asset rather than a financial asset.
True in some respects .There are farmers who live in shit and rust I agree
Cycling is niche in this country, mountain biking is a niche in a niche, and cheeky trails is a niche in a niche in a niche. The article was right about arbitrary categorisation of bridleways and foot paths. How flipping silly eh? The argument for open access is legitimate, but:
1. We aren't exactly popular with some other trail users
2. We have no effective single voice, and ain't going to win a straight up debate easily against well organised groups like the ramblers, NT, National Parks etc.
3. There's a risk lack of considerate use of trails actually pushes our cause backwards.
4. It's not like the Kinder Trespass. We will not get mass law breaking events going, and even if we did, we'd not get much sympathy from the wider public in the short term.
If we genuinely want to legitimise the cheeky stuff, I think the thing that will most help our cause in the short term is developments like CyB, GT or the Adrenaline Gateway in Lancashire. This shows that mountain biking can be used as a re-generation tool in areas that really need it. It needed people sympathetic to our cause in positions of influence to get this going. They are the visionaries!
If local businesses see an increase in trade due to mountain biking, they'll come over to our way of thinking eventually, cos money talks.
The other thing we should look at in the short term is infiltrating other groups to get a say in things. Thinking here of the example where the anti-hunt people joined the National Trust en-masse to get hunting stopped on NT land. We need to work the systems already in place. Use the force Luke.
Longer term it'd be great to have a powerful lobbying body, but see niche issue above - we're too small in number at present to pull this off without backing from other bodies who have influence.
Oh yeah, and in the long term we'll all be dead, so in the meantime I'll continue to use cheeky trails.....
[i]If we genuinely want to legitimise the cheeky stuff, I think the thing that will most help our cause in the short term is developments like CyB, GT or the Adrenaline Gateway in Lancashire. This shows that mountain biking can be used as a re-generation tool in areas that really need it. It needed people sympathetic to our cause in positions of influence to get this going. They are the visionaries![/i]
The alternative argument is the one of ghetto-isation ie "you have trail centres, why don't you go and ride there"
That one needs to be a very careful balancing act otherwise MTBers will simply end up shooting themselves in the foot.
We have trail centres where only we can ride but hey, we want these FP's as well.
Hmmm...
crazy-legs - agree totally. This is where lack of considerate trail use could really hurt us (n.b. "trail" = bridleway AND footpath, and anything else we ride on for that matter).
If we're seen to be dangerous or inconsiderate of the other users in anti-social ways, there's always a risk there will be pressure to move us into the centres exclusively.
Edric, out of interest where do you live / ride?
good point C-legs or even worse..... you've got yer trail centres so we're going to stop you riding on bridleways too 😮
Shirley, there's a danger that if you make too much fuss, we could easily end up worse off, rather than better?
Agree very much with the first part of snowslave's post though.
Edit... beat me to it snowslave
Somerset I nearly always ride on the Mendips
What I don't do is speculate on the mental states of others. [b]etc[/b]
that was in response to:
"You don't argue, or even listen/read. You just transmit."
[b]Buzzlightyear[/b] was speculating about my mental states on inadequate evidence.
The thing is, my approach is to behave as if the changes to access we'd like have already taken place. This doesn't require cooperation from anyone else. For those who instead feel that we should all play nice so that eventually (century unspecified) The Man will magnanimously grant us the Holy Grail (or at least, a few coloured baubles), they have to present a compelling argument to change my behaviour - and not only me, but also many other unknown parties who don't even know of (or care about) the controversy.
I've been told by someone who has been far more deeply involved in the bureaucratic process that the powers that be are actually more likely to regularise existing behaviour than to create new access.
Longer term it'd be great to have a powerful lobbying body
as I've pointed out before, the types attracted to mountain biking seem for the most part to be ill suited to joint action, to the extent that many prefer to ride alone. I did have hopes for IMBA, but lost patience with them when they carried out a joint trail sanitisation project (thankfully now nearly defunct) in Grizedale with a 4x4 group. This forum gives ample evidence that we cannot agree on anything 🙂
Shirley, there's a danger that if you make too much fuss, we could easily end up worse off, rather than better?
as exampled near Street Gate, Malham when the formal inquiry into promoting a section of FP to match the BW it connected to resulted in the BW being [b]demoted[/b] 🙁
Personally I think its pretty hard to disagree with simons statement above. However I have noticed Simons method of arguing appears to be
1. Act like a really *
2. Home in on one person and really try and * them off
3. If the conversation starts to deviate any from Simon try and make some comments which will * everyone off to remind them the conversation is about Simon.
4. When people are really *ed off and are starting to assume your a complete troll hit them with some well thought out arguments which will surprise them every more as they'd previously assumed you only had one brain cell.
Its an interesting approach I must say and it seems to be somewhat effective on a internet forum, although I'd wonder how it would work in real life.
2. Home in on one person and really try and **** them off
you have that backwards. I home in on ideas, and often don't notice who's expressing them. Other people focus on me for reasons I've never understood.
although I'd wonder how it would work in real life.
I've only been doing it for 55 years so the jury is still out 🙂
TandemJeremy - Member
Perhaps the amount of trail centres means that if people want fast blasts they can go to GT rather than tear up a bridleway - so the MTBers out in the hills tend to be riding slower and more courteously.
what utter fictitious drivel!
what utter fictitious drivel!
[b]please[/b] don't flame TJ or he'll throw his teddy 🙁
He's a sensitive flower who needs careful handling...
Diggers - nice of you to be so reasonable - note the "perhaps" I was looking for reasons why there is less conflict with walkers in Scotland and I think that might be a part of it. Less MTBers acting like idiots on th hill paths as there is easier access to the trail centres to do so
Ride in Scotland do you?
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000037_en_1
i'm not getting into this argument, as obviously there are some people out there who simply cant differentiate right from wrong (not legal /illegal). i haven't read the article, so cant comment on it yet, but have included a link to the CROW act of 2000 above for anyone that wishes to to read.
i think everyone at some point has ridden on a footpath at some time, this doesn't make it right though.
where i live, there is a huge problem with people ridding through reserves and farmland and the land managers are getting seriously f$£ked off about it.
forget the legalities for a moment and consider why these designations are there and why you have access to some areas and not to others. if there is a footpath through a field and the farmer has ewes about to lamb, their stress threshold can cope with walkers slowly moving through, but speeding bikes will panic he ewes and cause them to miscarry. there are other cases locally where bikes have damaged SSSIs and other fragile habitat at however good you think you are, you just cant move as carefully as someone on foot.
where do you draw the line? if it is "cheeky" to ride a bike on a footpath, is it equally so to ride a trail bike on a bridleway or park your car in a field whilst yo go off for a ride?
farmers round these parts are generally nice people and the ones we've approached to ask if we can take a short cut through their land usually say yes, it's just when you don't ask and presume you can that they get annoyed.
a friend of mine has every year at fair time, some of our traveling friends come and park their caravans on his land. They ask and in return, do bits of work around the farm, everyone's happy....... except a couple of years ago, some others turned up, parked where he had asked them not to, sh1t in his hedges and wouldn't move. they were asked to leave, then told and given a deadline, but didn't. to his day, no-one's quite sure how the caravans just happened to get in the way of his reversing tractor. still, flat caravans burn just as well as square ones. The police didn't come out as they don't like to get involved in these things 😉
point i'm making here is that this farmer (who is a good mate of mine) has problems with mountainbikers riding over his land (usually Tuesday nights from wells), he's asked them not to, but they still do. He's fairly tolerant, but when pushed far enough.............
Why do people get ****ed off with people riding bikes on footpaths? If you're just riding along and being friendly to people you meet why do they not like it?
If a footpath goes through a field of wheat why would a farmer mind if you rode a bike along it?
If it the footpath is not across a delicate ecosystem and you're not going to be disturbing the only nesting pair of Less Spotter Warblers then why would anyone mind if you rode a bike along it?
But, as riding footpaths is not illegal and I dispute I do any damage to property that a heavy rainstorm or a falling tree might do clearly I am not doing anything wrong and will continue to ride footpaths anyway.
if there is a footpath through a field and the farmer has ewes about to lamb, their stress threshold can cope with walkers slowly moving through, but speeding bikes will panic he ewes and cause them to miscarry
If there is a bridleway through a field and the farmer has ewes about to lamb, their stress threshold can cope with walkers slowly moving through, but speeding bikes will panic he ewes and cause them to miscarry.
Riding bikes fast through livestock is wrong regardless of any right of way.
Somerset I nearly always ride on the Mendips
Ever ridden to the trig point on Black Down, Edric?
Nick - its not the one bike thats the problem - its if everyone thinks "its just one bike" and then can cause damage either directly or indirectly.
It's all very transitory though isn't it? For instance I ride footpaths in an area that was once an industrial wasteland some 150 years ago, it's now overgrown and 'beautiful' again, the paths get a bit wider in the winter as the vegitation dies back and some stones move about a bit and it changes over time, but I dispute entirely that it's being damaged rather it's just being used for a different purpose to the one that created the landscape in the first place.
In another 100 years maybe people won't be mountain biking any more, and there will be little if any evidence that anyone rode a bike there ever, but even if there was does it really matter?
Why do people get **** off with people riding bikes on footpaths? If you're just riding along and being friendly to people you meet why do they not like it?
Many people will still be annoyed by it [i]simply because it is prescribed by law.
[/i]
If the same person saw you riding the same piece of ground but it was classed as a bridleway, they may be unconcerned as to your presence.
The mere fact that you are perceived as doing something you are not supposed to be doing can be enough to make someone angry, even if no inconvenience or damage is being caused.
Many people just don't like others "getting away with something" they
shouldn't be doing.
It's not just about collateral damage, image is very important as well.
Nick - for sure it all depends when and where - there are two issues here that get muddled up
1) riding on footpaths annoys people
2) riding where its inappropriate annoys people and does damage.
If there is a bridleway through a field and the farmer has ewes about to lamb, their stress threshold can cope with walkers slowly moving through, but speeding bikes will panic he ewes and cause them to miscarry.
this is the first I've ever heard of this, and the only signs I've ever seen are "Lambing - please close the gate" and "Lambs on't road", so I wonder if you're not overstating the case ? I know it can be dangerous to come between a cow and her calf.
It occurs to me that perhaps things are different in more densely populated parts of the country. Most of the places we ride we don't see many people and rarely any farm workers at all.
Tuesday from Wells? Thats pretty much got to be the bike city crew IMO.
Tuesday from Wells?
[img] 
[/img]
Read the article the other night and while I thought it was good, it missed the point that, for most people, the vague threat of a civil action isn't the main deterrent from riding footpaths - it's the fact that they often have physical measures to exclude cyclists, such as really tight kissing gates or fences.
Admittedly none of these work very well, but they can put you off using a route, especially when you have to lift your bike over a stile every 100m or so.
Under current RoW law, access and surfaces of paths have to be kept suitable for the permitted user group (e.g. you're not allowed to put a stile across a byway, or plough up footpaths) - how would that work if more of the countryside was open to cyclists?
Oh and totally agree about the aceness of Tuesday Weld, watch "Pretty Poison" if you haven't already!
[i]Under current RoW law, access and surfaces of paths have to be kept suitable for the permitted user group[/i]
...except they have to make no specific provision for cyclists on bridleways.
Yep, true dat. I'm thinking in terms of baby steps though. Round my way it would be a major undertaking just to replace the kissing gates and stiles with cyclist-friendly access.
Opening up access to cyclists might also bring problems as it would throw lots of soft muddy paths open to abuse in bad weather conditions, or by green laning twunts - there are some spectacularly f--ked bridleways and byways round these parts.
Many people will still be annoyed by it simply because it is prescribed by law.
Again: riding on footpaths [i]isn't[/i] proscribed by law.
The law protects the right of pedestrians to walk along a footpath, but it does not make it illegal to ride a bike there.
Stop publicising footpaths via video, print and forums.Its a numbers game...
Graham
Calderdale
Stop publicising footpaths via video, print and forums.Its a numbers game...
your strategy has to include the fact that this will not happen
A really interesting thread.
Elliptic; a very good point made about the trig point on Black Down not actually being on a BW!
Edric: now you know, you must ride around it. We expect complete obedience! 😀
Pay attention, I'm about to put my head on the block and hand the beheading axe to SFB (I had a wee spat with him earlier, but I'm being grown up again)
[i]Y'know this Mendip ride I'm running in August? I'm proposing to take a group of you on a public footpath.[/i]
Now hear me out....
I would not do this if it had even the slightest detrimental impact on the landowner or other users. The track in question is currently under application for upgrade to a BW based on suitability and historical use by cyclists and horse riders. It is wide, barely used except for droving livestock, passes near no residences or over no fields, is not a beauty spot or protected area. It is very likely to have been a historical cross-road that was mis-classified. By using the trail, we re-enforce the case for upgrading its status. I will make sure we ride that trail responsibly (slowly). In the very unlikely event that anyone complains, I am prepared to take the heat. I have discussed this and have support from other local riders on here, including one who lives a couple of hundred metres from the trail.
I accept this is controversial and I'm nervous about it. But I hope you can understand that it's not in the same league of cheekiness as riding a popular scenic footpath in a national park on busy weekend.
Oh yeah, and in the long term we'll all be dead, so in the meantime I'll continue to use cheeky trails.....
I'm happy to go along with you Steve on this one.
And if I get stopped by anyone whilst riding a footpath in future, I'm just going to tell them that its not illegal and give them a copy of one of those links. That'll stump them...
Better get a copy or two printed off before Sunday morning. Turtle Trail towards Gollums Pool and then the Terrible Turns, here I come!
Amen Buzz.
It'll be interesting to see if the aggressive crazy lady in the volvo decides to confront on the day.
TBH, its been a good few years since I've heard any trouble down there and I'm not even sure if she's around anymore.
By using the trail, we re-enforce the case for upgrading its status
that's how nearly all rights of way come about. Landowners only want private or toll roads.
Are we not now making a mountain out of a mole hill.
Just ride sensitivly and in small groups, be polite and you will mostly be fine. If your confronted, say sorry and ride off.
Then the problem wont really exist.
Common sence will triumph over badly written rules.
Can I make a point, with apologies if it's been made before:I haven't had time to read all of the posts above.
I ride my local woods almost every day. In there are public footpaths, a bridleway, unclassified paths and various "horse trails". The woods are owned by the Forestry Commission, and their local officer has told me that I am not to ride there other than on the public bridleway as I will "cause damage". The local "Friends of the Wood" organisation have told me the same thing.
A little further away from me are some woods owned by the Woodland Trust. In it are varioius paths and a permissive horse / bike track. There are "no cycling" signs everywhere (other than on the permitted track, obviously).
The National Trust. I have a lot of time for them, and have been a member for more years than I can remember. Despite the comment made in an earlier post, they have improved facilities for cyclists, eg upgrading the footpath beside Loughrigg Tarn to bridleway status, which provides a useful link, much safer / funner / more scenic than the road alternative. [b]However[/b], it has to be said there are generally few bridleways on their land, with the possible exception of some National Parks.
My point is this. Should we not be trying to persuade these organisations, all of whom are, to some extent, in the public domain, to allow greater (and responsible) access, instead of going out there with all guns blazing and trying to change the world all in one go. Surely this would be a good first step, with a reasonable chance of success?
I think that a group such as the National Trust could make a big difference. There must be a lot of mountain bikers and (horse riders etc) who are members of the trust. Using this membership influence to alter the trusts' policy on bicycle access would be a great move. NT own huge amounts of land, including lots of coastal areas. If such an influential landowner could work to alter its policy, this could have a great knock on effect.
Any thoughts?