Does anyone else remember the fluorescent light units used to shore up the fence?
duplicate
They aren’t outright barred- I think the FC could make a good case for it but they’ve chosen not to. In most cases, walking on GT trails couldn’t be considered responsible though, and dodging bikes wouldn’t be much fun- even walking onsite for trailbuilding can be a pain with traffic.It’s also, let’s be honest, mostly a pretty ugly forest- lots of shitey haunted sitka desert. The oakwood and bits of the lower slopes are pretty nice though.
I'd rather leave it down to common sense tbh, even in places where you are likely to run in to walkers, ie close to glasgow, cathkin braes, carron valley, you do get walkers out on the trails, but they soon realise they need to keep out the road. Out in mugdock, walkers and cyclists happily co-exist (though I'm up for poisoning all the dogs! 😆 )
Only been out the pentlands a few times, but seems fine over there too. And if you are actually up a decent sized hill/mountain. people are actually fairly supportive of your efforts.
Personally I'd hope the glentress arrangement is just common sense live and let live, it does generally work all over in my experience.
Don’t make me laugh. The “walking” trails have been cut up by MTB tyres.
That is true on some of the paths. All I meant was that separate walking trails do exist though, which I imagine was a deliberate attempt to keep cyclists and walkers apart where possible.
replying to bigjim -- it was Black Hill I was on, not the best conditions (shouldn't have gone to be fair) but it was not enjoyable. It bore no resemblance to the peaty path descent I recall :/
I did once bump into the gamekeeper leading a shoot, as I had a chainsaw bag over my shoulder, I thought it rude not to ask if it was okay to take out some windfallen trees.
He said 'no problem, do what you want in the woods up there, we don't shoot in there.
Tbh I was going to anyway, but still....
@ bigjim
I’m not advancing an argument for illegal trailbuilding, I made the point to set the problem in perspective. It’s tiny...
I’m sure there must be many on here, like me, who have spent time traversing hundreds of hills and glens who are simply awestruck by the sheer magnitude, ugliness and destruction of those bulldozed tracks.
The Landowners have got away with this because they sit outside the current planning regime.
but it's a different problem, the issues with unofficial mtb trails are as presented in the program and the cosmetic damage caused by them is a minor point compared to the others being raised.
I'd imagine across the country unofficial mtb trail building generates far more issues and interactions for stakeholders, access officers, landowners and user groups than upland estate tracks, despite their difference in physical scale.
I’d imagine across the country unofficial mtb trail building generates far more issues and interactions for stakeholders, access officers, landowners and user groups than upland estate tracks, despite their difference in physical scale.
That's a guess though, based on nothing at all. I could be quite confident in a similar guess that there are actually very few interactions, in Scotland Anyway. Probably be a bit more of an issue in the crowded south.
Litigation is a similar story, loads of folk going on about landowners being sued, but how many times has this actually happened in reality? Genuine question.
Had another watch of it...I'm still getting the impression to most people, that whole piece was about getting mountain bikers to only use trail centres. The chat from Jess didn't seem to get any traction and was more a wee nod to those that think outside what they want to be the 'norm'.
it's a guess but it's based on experience. I'm not sure how you would find out about historical cases of people being sued. The Mast as described above is a good example of a landowner/trail builder conflict being resolved nicely.
Surely any MTBer v landowner cases would be all over social media? Can't recall seeing much, if any at all?.
Member of public: I'd like to sue this landowner.
Solicitor: You should definitely put all the details on social media as that's never going to have a negative impact on your case....
Bigjim is correct in terms of what generates more issues.
Yes landowners getting sued isn't an uncommon occurrence. No you won't hear about it. It only takes one serious case to cost millions.
<span style="font-size: 0.8rem;">To avoid being sued landowners have to demonstrate they have discharged their duty of care which costs time and money in terms of day to day management but then defending yourself in court as well. Lots of cases get paid out as it's cheaper than fighting it.</span>
And I know this doesn't fit your narrative so will go in one ear and out the other.
Member of public: I’d like to sue this landowner.
Solicitor: You should definitely put all the details on social media as that’s never going to have a negative impact on your case….
Bigjim is correct in terms of what generates more issues.
Yes landowners getting sued isn’t an uncommon occurrence. No you won’t hear about it. It only takes one serious case to cost millions.
<span style=”font-size: 0.8rem;”>To avoid being sued landowners have to demonstrate they have discharged their duty of care which costs time and money in terms of day to day management but then defending yourself in court as well. Lots of cases get paid out as it’s cheaper than fighting it.</span>
And I know this doesn’t fit your narrative so will go in one ear and out the other.
Going by that logic, the case regarding the lawyer who sued the MTB coach wouldn't have made the news then eh?. Obviously such details don't reach the news during cases, but after the ruling has been made. The likes of this place, pinkbike etc would be full of them, would they not?. Maybe that doesn't fit with your drama queen narrative?.
As I said earlier, my experiences are based pretty much all on riding in Scotland, with the odd twice or thrice yearly weekend in the Lakes, and I've never had an issue there either. I ride responsibly, ceding to walkers, horses, etc, not spooking cattle or other livestock, avoiding certain trails due to soft conditions after poor weather etc,... I'm afraid the landowner comes way down that list of priorities. YMMV.
Aye - black hill owner will not allow any work on the paths. A few years ago I tried to get involved and organise some path repair.
Really? do they just not want people on their land? If the likes of the national trust/national parks had that attitude, can you imagine the size of the scar running the length of the likes of Ben Lomond? the erosion would be horrendous.
It's a complex issue which isn't exactly specific to the UK either, it happens globally. Turning it round, Landward was around highlighting (I think, my opinion etc) that there are trails being developed outside the Trail Centre networks, 'Wild Trails' - and that to ensure these are enduring we need to find a way to engage the stakeholders constructively. It's not about taking things away or making new trail centre trails, it's about making sure they remain accessable and can be developed sympathetically. The various groups will not engage with individuals (esp. not large ones) so getting organised helps legitimise our aims and creates a way to have this dialogue properly. My NZ experience was that it went from tracts of land being 'closed' to a more constructive dialogue which has meant better access and ultimately more joined up, maintained trails. That's my experience anyway.
The good think in Scotland is that the land access laws have encouraged dialogue between landowners and trail users/those that "cut down windfallen wood".
I think there's obviously a line to be drawn - for me it would be causing genuine damage, e.g. removing live trees which will eventually be felled for wood. Clearing some low lying branches in a forested area is fine, working out a way of getting through/over wind fallen trees seems OK to me too. Natural ruts and berms, sometimes even drops will develop. And a couple of cheeky jumps is maybe pushing a bit but if it's not affecting the landowner, why not?
Being sued is another matter altogether, but there's no provision as far as I'm aware to ban people from access to your land in Scotland in case they sue you. I guess in the case of trail features and stuff, expectations for off piste trail users have to be managed - it's not going to be like a trail centre where proper consideration has been given to keeping the riders safe. You're looking after yourself like a big boy, which is why people like to ride off piste!
Surely any MTBer v landowner cases would be all over social media? Can’t recall seeing much, if any at all?.
No, why? The media just cherry picks interesting stuff. There's all kinds of crazy cases going on all the time, people are killed every day in various ways but you only hear of the juicy/unusual stuff, I mean people getting on roads is just background noise, look at how many people die on roads vs how many stories you see every day. There's been a few high profile mtb cases but most will be in the background.
Really? do they just not want people on their land? If the likes of the national trust/national parks had that attitude, can you imagine the size of the scar running the length of the likes of Ben Lomond? the erosion would be horrendous.
You have a very innocent view of the world! No, they don't want to encourage people onto their land (like a large proportion of private landowners) they're trying to run as a grouse moor.
Natural ruts and berms, sometimes even drops will develop. And a couple of cheeky jumps is maybe pushing a bit but if it’s not affecting the landowner, why not?
agreed, but look at some of our local stuff off the Westie - 'secret trails' etc .... 🙁
Don’t make me laugh. The “walking” trails have been cut up by MTB tyres.
This genuinely surprises me - when there are bike trails available and plenty of of piste stuff should the wish arise. But then again there are far, far more bikes visiting GT than walkers.
agreed, but look at some of our local stuff off the Westie – ‘secret trails’ etc ….
(not sure why that smiley's gone huge)
I guess that's the fine line between "someone's massive estate" and "someone's back garden" - it seems like after some communication (and reportedly some bad behaviour on both sides) the situation has resolved itself.
Surely any MTBer v landowner cases would be all over social media? Can’t recall seeing much, if any at all?.
Down south a rider sued the Crown Estates for a four figure sum a few years back. I don't think it ever made the news and only came to light because it caused* a big shake up of some rather nice semi official trails.
*well, it may have been one of several causes.
"This genuinely surprises me – when there are bike trails available and plenty of of piste stuff should the wish arise."
They mostly get used as links- the path from Tower Ride up to near Zorro is a popular one to cut out the last bit of climb and Britney Spears, frinstance. That one's really obvious because the start's so muddy. And people use the Ponds Trail to cut across from ponduro to the road, for some reason
No, why? The media just cherry picks interesting stuff.
I never said the media, I said social media, two very different entities.
You have a very innocent view of the world! No, they don’t want to encourage people onto their land
No, again, you have not read what I wrote. Because they have to allow access to us serfs, and by not allowing path upgrades, they are leaving themselves open to unarmoured paths being turned into motorway wide bogs, as seen on the likes of cut gate and many other places.
No beer - the landowner in this case desn't care. He wants the land for grouse shooting. the worse condition the plebs path is the happier he will be
they are leaving themselves open to unarmoured paths being turned into motorway wide bogs, as seen on the likes of cut gate and many other places.
it pretty much is a road width bog! But they don't want to improve it as it'll encourage more use of it.
I'm not sure how a case of this nature would end up big on social media without first being in the media. I do know for a fact from working for a large landowner that there's plenty of claim cases, that I've certainly never seen in any social or mainstream media. I'm not sure why or how they'd ever get into any media without being some kind of particularly interesting flagship case.
Also I was thinking it was strange the Landward feature didn't include the TVTA - Dougie's parting comment was a perfect segue into the work of the TVTA.
Ach away it’s not a different problem at all. Trashing the landscape is just that - whether it’s some wee laddie with a shovel or an Estate Owner with a bulldozer.
FCS has justifiable concerns about litigation but then they could look to relinquishing / ceding control of some of the forests to the local communities instead of paying lip service to the
You have a very innocent view of the world! No, they don’t want to encourage people onto their land (like a large proportion of private landowners) they’re trying to run as a grouse moor.
so ultimately this question should go where I first suggested, the rights and wrongs of land ownership. ie lets kick these shysters oot! 😆
