but I feel no regret in saying you SHOULD be of a certain speed and skill to attempt reds/blacks (which is relatively low in the UK anyway, so not too hard) and that trail centres ARE for cycling fast at, not dawdling round.
This is the bit that I don't agree with and I want you to justify. You note you are the only person arguing this on here. What basis are you justifying this on? Yo keep asserting this but with no justification.
English law has also been discussed on this thread and my understanding - although I am not totally certain is that FC land in England is open access.
bump for the glitch
You're at a trail centre with your well behaved dog. Cycling away and having a jolly good time. A faster rider closes in on you. It just so happens this rider has a fear of dogs. He backs right off, maybe even looses concentration and crashes and dies. You've just spoilt his day. Good job.
Your fantastically behaved dog runs neatly infront/behind you. His tongue is floppy everywhere and his eyes are smiling. You both are sharing a special moment. You catch up with a group of children, who, due to a rare medical condition must bathe in Pedigree Chum as part of their treatment. Your dog forgets all his training and gobbles the children up. You've just spoilt their day too.
Another dog owner sees you and your dog playing on the cycle trails and thinks that it must be OK. On his next visit to the trail centre he decides to bring his dog. Sadly, his dog isn't as well behaved as yours and sh!ts everywhere before eating and killing lots of other dogs and a few children too. Once again you've just spoilt their day.
I really could go on, but I hope you get the point. I love dogs but I think it's irresponsible for owners to think it's OK to bring them to a cycle specific area to get exercise. (regardless of what may be legal).
Euro - By your argument it's totally irresponsible to have a dog anywhere.
Only if you don't understand my point.
dogs are part of life euro.
as are kids in supermarkets.
That glitch still about?!
This is the bit that I don't agree with and I want you to justify. You note you are the only person arguing this on here. What basis are you justifying this on? Yo keep asserting this but with no justification.
I'm the only one willing to stick his neck out, though a few are alluding to it if you read the replies.
I'd be fairly certain that this justification falls under the "skills and ability" requirement posted on most black and red trailheads? By not completing the trails at a reasonable pace, it would suggest your skills are not up to scratch. As I've said from the start, I'm not arguing what is currently the case as I believe you're right in your position on that. What I suggest is a bit stupid is the hypocrisy of red/black trails then having people having to ride slowly and give way to walkers or people who've ill-assessed their skill levels but are continuing anyway and getting in the way. IMO it's all part of the blame and ass-covering culture, if you sign something as dangerous and technical it's stupid to expect people to ride it as slowly and carefully as they might a blue route with kids about. However it makes sense to do that if you want to protect your own ass from people claiming for injury on your land etc. I'm not suggesting that red and blacks should be *designated* as fast people only, I'm suggesting common sense would dictate that r/b trails are fast and technical *by their very nature*, and as such people should accept that if they want to use them they should be capable of doing so. Technical trails ridden slowly are pointless and almost unridable, the obstacles put in them are often completely unridable without commitment and speed, who in their right minds thinks it's a smart idea to take a dog or a child on such courses if they are not capable of it?
We are going round in circles. There's no justification because no right-minded trail centre owner would put themselves at legal risk of "okaying" fast riding in the current claimy climate. All I'll say is that if you're not careful all the technical trails will turn into llandegla trails of smoothness and dual-use family day-out places with picnic spots, not places where you can pit your stuff against the soil and roots. IF that's the sort of place you want to be, keep at it. This is why we have graded trails. This is why we have red and black runs, for those more capable and willing to ride quickly. If you look at the "target times" for some of the trail centres, times suggested by the paper guides they provide or on the noticeboards at the start, you'll find that they actually cant be done without significant speed, often faster than I can muster and I apparently ride too fast as it is!
so kids are not welcome at your trail centre either coffeeking?
so kids are not welcome at your trail centre either coffeeking?
Not on the red and black routes, unless they're quick and skilled. They can pootle round the beginner routes all day long until they get up to scratch, then they're welcome along. I'd consider you irresponsible for taking them on a red if you did before they were capable. Do 7 year olds get to drive in your world?
what are you harping on about?
do you need a license to ride a red?
sounds like your the one that should be banned from trail centres as you are unable to trust yourself not to slap into anything.
Cheers - that clarifies somewhat
I'm not suggesting that red and blacks should be *designated* as fast people only, I'm suggesting common sense would dictate that r/b trails are fast and technical *by their very nature*, and as such people should accept that if they want to use them they should be capable of doing so.
I still take issue with your use of "fast " and would prefer something like "competent" but we are getting into hair splitting territory. To some folk my riding would be considered slow - to others fast I guess. It seemed to me that you were saying unless you can ride at full on DH pace you shouldn't be there. You have clarified so thanks for that.
We have wandered far from the OP tho. I still think the onus is on the rider to ensure they don't crash into a numpty in front of them even if the numpty shouldn't have been there.
As for target times - most of the time is made up or spent climbing not descending. get fitter and you will hit that time without racing downhill 🙂 Just like me *
>
.
.
.
.
.
.* 3 - 4 hrs to get round GT red - thats fast isn't it? I usually have to stop for a picnic halfway 🙂
Coffeeking - which of these people shouldn't be on GT red then?
It's Simples, I take my dog to trail centres, but I also take the GF to walk him!! 😉 😆
TJ - they're both fine, and capable of a decent pace, they're welcome in my trail centre 🙂 The onus currently is on me not to run someone or their dog over, but I think it's a very odd state of affairs to be in when in a place of supposedly targetted-use trails with people of similar interest and competency.
Target times, yes I could certainly do with improving my ups (have you been watching me?!), but I much prefer going down very fast; I just don't want to compete, and have no-where else to do this where there's a lower likelyhood of finding people with a dog or a kid in the way. I'll attempt GT soon, not made it over there yet!
I own two working springer spaniels. They behave fantastically when I go out riding with them. However there are two rules I follow:
1. I would never run them when its hot, even when we had all the snow I made sure I stopped EVERYTIME I saw running water so they could drink. (I'm not 'over' protective of my dogs, and certainly do not modycodle them! I expect them to work hard and earn their keep, however they still have basic needs as we all do!!)
2. I would NEVER dream of taking them to a trail centre!! Although I wouldn't want them cutting in front of someone hoofing it down a track and ruining their run, my main concern would be them being ****ted by someone hoofing down a run, and me forking out a fortune to the vets!!!! I wouldn't/couldn't hold that person responsible as I should be in control of them. Infact I would fully expect them to be claiming off the pet insurance for damages done to their bike!!
There are plenty of places to ride with the dogs where if you meet other people then fair enough, but not at a dedicated trail centre!!
Anyhow, just my tupence worth!!
The onus currently is on me not to run someone or their dog over, but I think it's a very odd state of affairs to be in when in a place of supposedly targetted-use trails with people of similar interest and competency.
I very much doubt that would stand in a court of law. 'Sorry guv, I didn't see the highly-contrasting n00b who had crashed in front of me until I'd run him over and burst his spleen. Have a bit of consideration for others.
I very much doubt that would stand in a court of law. 'Sorry guv, I didn't see the highly-contrasting n00b who had crashed in front of me until I'd run him over and burst his spleen. Have a bit of consideration for others.
Dougal, please read the thread before commenting. If you're not willing to do so, **** off and don't participate. [just to clarify, seeing as you haven't read previous posts] My point was that I do ride carefully, but don't think that in an ideal world it should be my problem if you're walking your dog on a fast technical trail and it gets hit. Never once did I say it would stand up in court currently, and I still assert that reds and blacks should be ridden by people with sufficient skill. It's not me lacking consideration.
"" Lets throw in the fact that if you can't stop for anything you are out of control and therefore a complete f wit.
Yes. I take a drop off, and find mid-air that there's someone sat below it, where gravity is going to dictate that I land. Just how am I supposed to ride slow enough to stop? Oh, I get it, I have to stop first, get off, check noone's sat there, then push the bike back up the trail for another go ""
YES. It's called being responsible! I assume you don't worry about any thing else on the ground such as some one with a less exalted god like status than yourself who may have come off.
come on be sensible. It's like driving on the road. You always ride witin the limits of your stopping distance.
TandemJeremyThe law in Scotland is clear. Trail centres are just paths like any other at the moment.
Nonsense. Where is this clarity in the Scottish law? I'm assuming you're using the fact that it hasn't been tested in court. I'd love to see someone stand up and try and argue that a purpose built trail at a trail centre is not "land set aside for a particular recreational purpose".
Are you trying to tell me that for example the new Red DH route at Nevis Range is considered as "just paths like any other at the moment" 😆
Yup. thats my reading of the law. I am no lawyer but it seems fairly clear to me.
6 Land over which access rights not exercisable(1) The land in respect of which access rights are not exercisable is land—
..................
(e) which has been developed or set out—(i) as a sports or playing field; or
(ii) for a particular recreational purpose;
(
(2) Land which bears to be within section 6 above by virtue of a development or change of use for which planning permission was or is required under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (c. 8) shall, if—(a) such planning permission has not been granted; or
(b) such permission was granted subject to a condition which has not been complied with,
be regarded, for the purposes of that section, as if that development or change of use had not occurred.
So [i][b]my[/b][/i] reading is that planning permission has to be sought for land to be exempt from the provisions of the LRA under this section.
Edit - or a sherrif can declare it to be so but the assumption is full access unless specified other wise.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/legislation/scotland/acts2003/asp_20030002_en_1
The other tack is that walkers would not be exercising their rights responsibly if they walk on the Fort William DH track for example.
Without test cases then a path remains a path IMO from my reading of the law unless planning has been sought for it to be exempt, This may be the case for the fort william DH track but it is not for the trail centres I don't believe and it willnot be for the DH track unless the planning has been sought.
mattsccm - Member"" Lets throw in the fact that if you can't stop for anything you are out of control and therefore a complete f wit.
Yes. I take a drop off, and find mid-air that there's someone sat below it, where gravity is going to dictate that I land. Just how am I supposed to ride slow enough to stop? Oh, I get it, I have to stop first, get off, check noone's sat there, then push the bike back up the trail for another go ""
YES. It's called being responsible! I assume you don't worry about any thing else on the ground such as some one with a less exalted god like status than yourself who may have come off.
come on be sensible. It's like driving on the road. You always ride witin the limits of your stopping distance.
What a moronic response. Next time i'm going to take a drop off in my car, i'll worry about scoping it out first too then. Very daft comparison.
Back on the bike though, are you seriously telling me that you should ALWAYS stop, then push back up the trail against the flow of traffic before you take a drop off? Do you actually ride a bike, or do you just sit under a bridge idly waiting for three goats to trot by?