[Closed] Irresponsible bike brands

They might have got permission from the landowner?

Forestry plantation or SSSI? Can't see the former being that environmentally sensitive. The latter it'd bother me.

Without any details, my money is that it's the former, so whilst they may be annoying the landowner, it wouldn't really bother me, and their actions may in fact pave the way for a right of way being recognised at a later date due to the evidence of the trail's existence and use.

I know a brand that removed a promo from a sponsored athlete after it was pointed out it was a FP.
Probably an email to ask why is an option but also consider they might have permission

Yes, I wouldn't buy from them. A shop local to me put together an unofficial, mass start downhill race in an area busy with walkers - I no longer use the shop.

I can't abide the fact we have divided up the beautiful world we live in and allowed it to be sold to people for profit. We are obsessed with the ownership of things.

The world and nature is bigger than any one person waving some deeds around. I don't see the harm in people riding a bike there. I appreciate this makes me a bit of an asshole, I'm ok with that.

Yes it is an issue, for a couple of reasons. Firstly there are many quiet or little known access agreements in place. Such daft, promoted behaviour can wreak havoc on locals work and relationships. Secondly it encourages many to also behave in a similar manner, and ignore local access and responsible access.

Saracen had some of this last year on / around Helvellyn IIRC.

I know a brand that removed a promo from a sponsored athlete after it was pointed out it was a FP.

Nope, not that end of the country

Its open moorland, not quite SSSI but I think (only think, I could be wrong) there is some mild preservation order kind of thing.

angeldust - They might have got permission from the landowner?

jmatlock - I can't abide the fact we have divided up the beautiful world we live in and allowed it to be sold to people for profit. We are obsessed with the ownership of things.

The world and nature is bigger than any one person waving some deeds around. I don't see the harm in people riding a bike there. I appreciate this makes me a bit of an asshole, I'm ok with that.

I kind of agree but lets just say that the land owner is mulling over the idea of opening up many, many more trails [u][b]if[/b][/u] some reduction can be made on a couple of other trails, this being one of them.

So long as people are:

- Not scaring or bothering wildlife
- Not making being rude or impolite to others
- Not riding dangerously where there is limited line of sight

What is the issue? Not using a shop that is trying to get people into grass roots racing? That's some high horse nonsense right there.

matt_outandabout - Yes it is an issue, for a couple of reasons. Firstly there are many quiet or little known access agreements in place. Such daft, promoted behaviour can wreak havoc on locals work and relationships. Secondly it encourages many to also behave in a similar manner, and ignore local access and responsible access.

I think this is basically the whole thing in a nut shell for me and a couple of others that have been chatting. Just wanted a wider view.

Paddlesports have long worked through the angst of theses issues.

The idealist in me says 'get out and ride/walk/paddle'.

The pragmatist knows how much effort landowners often put in to accommodate access, and how quickly it can unravel and cause issues. I also know how much effort over years to persuade landowners and other stakeholders that bikers/walkers/paddlers are honestly responsible, nice people who think about more than just themselves - and then one numpty in five minutes erodes the trust that has been built up.

Yes we have some rights, but our responsibility has to be weighed.

Yeah, I've seen numerous edits that have cheeky trail content.
I've also seen maps at LBSs that show loops mostly made up of footpaths.
More often that not they haven't had permission to ride it either..
> Chris Akrigg in the Mongoose edit
> Ratboy on that persons wall.

I can see it from both sides but ultimately the red socks/ NIMBYs/ other organizations need to be happy or we lose access and any future relationship is out, which means not advertising these sites to the masses.

Is the location that recognisable? One bit of open moorland looks a lot like another and if someone recognises the location, surely they're already aware of the trail?

It wouldn't put me off the company, but I can see how it would damage the rider/landowner relationship....assuming that the landowner became aware of the film?

andeh - Is the location that recognisable? One bit of open moorland looks a lot like another and if someone recognises the location, surely they're already aware of the trail?

Yes, lets just say one high street looks like another high street but if its got Blackpool tower in the background to the left, the pier to the right and winter gardens behind you, its pretty clear where you are even if you've not been there before...

This trail isn't down Blackpool high street.

Well I may disapprove of it, but it probably wouldn't really be down to the landowner's wishes, more whether it was a sensible place to ride. But that said, I don't get too touchy about riding in the wet - we can't practically avoid that unlike people living in other climates, although it's preferable to find something that's not too sloppy.

@thepodge

As far as I'm aware from doing bike brand photoshoots in the past you need a landowner's permission to shoot commercially-used material there. In this case you may prefer that they didn't know about it and it may depend on what's meant by landowner / manager, but an easy fix may be that the business involved realises that if they didn't have required permission they're (as far as I understand) in the wrong and they should remove it.

Interesting point jameso.

Considering the landowner is relatively happy to have people on large parts of their land (and considering opening more up) but has brought up issues with this specific trail in the past, I cannot see that even if asked then they would have given permission.

thepodge - Member

I kind of agree but lets just say that the land owner is mulling over the idea of opening up many, many more trails if some reduction can be made on a couple of other trails, this being one of them.

Yup, that'd flip my switch a bit. Not sjust bike brands and landowners, there's quite a lot of "responsible use" stuff like this. Like, Gary Forrest did a video where he straightlined a load of corners on a trail we built, instantly loads of other people started copying his "lines" and the trail ended up savaged. MBR did a ride guide on a contentious, weather-sensitive trail and declared it "the best singletrack we've ridden anywhere" but didn't mention anything about "don't ride it in the wet" even though they ran the article in august... But the damage a big splash Sick Edit can do just from visibility is a level above.

jameso - Member

As far as I'm aware from doing bike brand photoshoots in the past you need a landowner's permission to shoot commercially-used material there.

I think a lot of people just don't think that way about it- like, to them they're not doing a "commercial shoot", they're doing a fun amateur edit.

This thread is useless without pictures!
Can we see the video in question please so we can make our own minds up?

which brands?

I'm just confused by the idea that there are two local bike companies in the UK (assuming they make bikes and don't just sell them). Otherwise, it's hardly the fault of the bike "brand" what a local distributor/retailer does.

Ratboy on that persons wall.

Much of that vid was on footpaths.

I can see it from both sides but ultimately the red socks/ NIMBYs/ other organizations need to be happy or we lose access

How did the red socks get their access? 85th anniversary coming up…

For the record, I'm personally ambivalent towards the use of any man made paths by bicycles., for advertising.

I'd just like to know to whom I'm being invited to aim opprobrium

There is a also a vid from about 5 years ago of a peripheral British Downhiller and he rides down that trail as well.

It has also been used in a photo in MBR to advertise riding in the area.

If we're talking about the same trail, of course, which I suspect is easily recognised due to a large man-made structure in the bottom of the valley(?)

On the flipside of this is the fact that some of the guys in the area who do very positive work with regards to trail maintenance and landowner 'management' also have videos up on youtube of them riding said trail - albeit under a different 'banner'.

To my mind, any publicity is bad publicity when it comes to 'cheeky' trails.

It often doesn't help on legit trails either as some people really don't need any real concerns to want to have a pop at us.

If you're going to ride cheeky, make sure it is just that - no grandstanding, no cool edits on youtube/vimeo and don't trash it.

Not being a plonker extends to legit trails as well - there are a few places in the Peaks that really don't benefit from being ridden in the winter - Cut Gate being one of them.

Its open moorland, not quite SSSI but I think (only think, I could be wrong) there is some mild preservation order kind of thing.

Considering most open moorland is actively managed to prevent the growth of various flora and fauna in favour of the narrow private interests of the landowner and their clients, I generally consider it an artificial environment and so fair game in consideration of 'environmental protection'. Of course because we don't know where you're talking about or who the landowner is it's impossible to provide an informed view in this case.

Has the landowner let it be widely known that they are considering opening up trails to reduce damage on others? If not how is anyone supposed to know? It's all very well saying people should just keep off but we know they won't. Most bikers I know are pretty reasonable and responsible. If they knew there was a particular issue in an area they'd probably avoid it.

If we're talking about who and where I think we are, perhaps give the company a shout before and naming and shaming. I'm pretty sure they'd be mortified to find they might be potentially causing bother.

was it the one where Chriss Akrigg rides down a valley through trees and over a river and down some rocks on a hard tail before ending at the pub? mongoose wasn't it.

If you're going to ride cheeky, make sure it is just that

+1

If we're talking about who and where I think we are, perhaps give the company a shout before and naming and shaming

Done

Names and locations withheld so as to not publicise the trail any further.

You're inviting us to be angry or the very least concerned enough to avoid spending money with two companies that you suggest are being irresponsible. That you won't name them makes it all a bit moot, doesn't it?

Much of that vid was on footpaths.

I thought you couldnt ride up/down that mountain either 😐

Yeah everyone has been contacted prior to this thread and I've not named for good reason.

Unfortunately while one reply seems to be pretty good the other is a bit meh.

nickc -

Names and locations withheld so as to not publicise the trail any further.

You're inviting us to be angry or the very least concerned enough to avoid spending money with two companies that you suggest are being irresponsible. That you won't name them makes it all a bit moot, doesn't it?

OK, imagine I'd put "hypothetically" at the beginning.

I've no intention of naming names, it doesn't help and could cause further issue. I was just interested in what other people thought about the scenario, not a witch hunt.

Only I have the solution... 😉

Given I ride FP's I cant complain.

I've no intention of naming names, it doesn't help

So what's the point of your thread then? (not being funny or judgemental, just genuinely interested) People ride cheeky all the time every day, there are people riding cheeky right now. What does it matter if it's filmed?

Outside of a small community of mountain bikers it's not going to have wide access, so unlikely to stir any issues, I'm willing to bet that since the dawn of video promos for bikes there have been bits of cheeky trails used, indeed, I've been on bike mag shoots where the trail used was a F/P, does that matter?

Is it because you happen to know the trails and you think [i]your[/i] access may be compromised? If that's the case are you just wanting to have your own "outrage" vindicated?

At the very least shouldn't you post the replies? redacted if necessary?

My reaction is 'meh,' ride what you want, care not for outdated ownership or rights of way. I tend not to ride footpaths through coz I cba lifting my bikes over stiles!

v666ern - Member

Much of that vid was on footpaths.

I thought you couldnt ride up/down that mountain either

If someone wants to tell you off they have to catch you first and you're at the top of a hill on a bike!

jekkyl - Member
My reaction is 'meh,' ride what you want, care not for outdated ownership or rights of way. I tend not to ride footpaths through coz I cba lifting my bikes over stiles!

we're not talking about simply riding a cheeky trail...

The point of my thread is at what point does a brands potentially negative actions influence you?

It's different if it is part of an ad campaign or sick edit. It should be done with permission of the land owner, and brands / riders should be named and shamed if they don't have it.

Naming and shaming doesn't help if the brand has realised the mistake and is willing to be proactive about it, it just makes them think "balls to it, they've already rubbished me, I might as well carry on" which helps no one.

I'd be pretty miffed about it to be honest. Its just giving people a stick to beat us with. Hope had a similar thing couple of years ago with pics of the lads riding down CatBells of all places. They removed them pretty sharpish when it was pointed out to them.

not just as a nice scenic background but skidding / roosting through corners and riding it in largely inappropriate weather

This also winds me up. I remember (I think) Chipps writing about it. Wanting to portray "sick riding" balanced against responsible riding in sensitive areas.

The point of my thread is at what point does a brands potentially negative actions influence you?

We don't know what those negative actions are, or in what context or for what purpose. Is the cheeky trails a fleeting moment, or the whole thing? Is it the purpose of the film to highlight that one should ride cheeky? Shouldn't ride cheeky? to seek it out and damn the consequences? Is it obvious, do they ride past a F/P sign laughing? or is it just a line in the dirt down a hill? Without context any questions of influence are redundant aren't they?.

I remember all the hassle with bike access being shut down in a lot of areas in the early 1990's, due to ****s carving up areas and generally razzing past walkers and so on.

We are still only a small fragmented group when it comes to land access negotiations when compared to ramblers and the horsey brigade. whilst we may want to ride and be free to play ('cos rules suck dude) in any area we fancy, we all have a personal responsibility to ensure the sustainability of the sport through our actions, be that keeping cheeky trails quiet, not riding areas that can't sustain high traffic in poor conditions, rebuilding trails we damage, or not being being selfish tits and buggering up land access for others, unless you just want an endless sea of sterile trail centers.

this is just a personal view and I have no problem with others having a differing opinion, but If a company was promoting riding in sensitive areas, or showing riding like a cock and chewing the area up in promotional material then I would be giving them a miss.

The point of my thread is at what point does a brands potentially negative actions influence you?

The point people are making is that it's hard to make any sort of valid judgement in an evidential vacuum. If I thought a brand was genuinely damaging the environment or breaking criminal laws or being overtly sexist or racist or discriminatory on other grounds that would concern me.

It's not a black and white thing though, which is why it's hard to venture an opinion without actually having a concrete example of what you're talking about. Personally I hate brands who sponsor 'athletes' with all the lumpen social charm and articulateness of Beavis and Butthead, but that's just me.

Considering most open moorland is actively managed to prevent the growth of various flora and fauna in favour of the narrow private interests of the landowner and their clients, I generally consider it an artificial environment and so fair game in consideration of 'environmental protection'.

This is spot on. There is very little natural land in the UK. The vast majority of it has been changed to the benefit of the owners, usually several times over the decades.

BadlyWiredDog -

The point of my thread is at what point does a brands potentially negative actions influence you?

The point people are making is that it's hard to make any sort of valid judgement in an evidential vacuum

I think we've established that some people do care and some people don't.

Though most that say they don't seem to have also missed the point.

This is spot on. There is very little natural land in the UK. The vast majority of it has been changed to the benefit of the owners, usually several times over the decades.

doesn't necessarily mean that there aren't sensitive species present, or the starts of regeneration projects etc.. or more importantly doesn't mean that they are then exempt from land access issues until there is a right to roam in england and wales or similar.

Well, there's a couple of big American brands I actively avoid because of how they've treated the little guy in the past and how (to my mind) they've been unnecessarily ruthless, so I'm interested in this.

However, anyone can make a mistake, I think how it's addressed says a lot more about those involved.

I think you need to post their responses, redacted if necessary.

It's pretty obvious what brands and trail you're referring to; having implicitly criticised them in your post, it's only fair you give them right of reply here if they've responded to you.

Anyone who deliberately skids on a trail that isn't purpose built for that sort of use, should be hung up by the balls and used as a piñata until all the shit is beaten out of them. Or at least made to do community service repairing the trails.

That's the sort of thing that got motorbikes banned from the countryside - we used to be able to ride almost anywhere without problems, then along came powerful pseudo scramblers ridden by entitled idiots, and roosted access right out the window.

There's more people who will object strenuously against that sort of riding than will support it.

Everytime we ride offroad we damage something. Its better than many other hobbies though..its just riding a bike afterall.

While I think epicyclo is possibly going a little far with the piñata treatment, I'm generally in support of most of his point and the OP.

Yep. The Ramblers got their access rights from the Kinder Trespass. Yep. The Horsey lot get their access from all sorts of presumed privilege mixed up with ancient transport law from when horses just *were* how you got about if you weren't walking, but none of that excuses riding like an entitled dick wherever you see fit.

Whether people think UK Access law is dumb or not (as a non-landowner I think it mostly is), landowners can make our lives very difficult as riders if they want and the 'gotta catch me' attitude is exactly how the MXers ripping up Wharney etc feel if a little context is needed. It's pretty hard most places to stay totally legit stringing a route together, but it really helps to behave when you know you shouldn't be there.

A lot of people put a lot of time and effort into trying to get us to the same tables as ramblers and horse riders when access is being discussed, and we need to respect that and support it if we don't want to see a whole lot of 'no bikes' stuff start popping up in the sort of places we want to ride.

If it's who I think it is, the pictures on their website homepage have actually changed in the last 2 hours, presumably to reflect said complaint.

They were really nice pictures

That's the sort of thing that got motorbikes banned from the countryside - [sic] and roosted access right out the window.

With respect, that's not true at all, and the sort of damage that mountain can do in comparison with what a 400cc trail bike can do are miles and miles apart.

Knowing just a little bit about podge I can guess which video he means, and perhaps which bit of trail.

But I think raising the question "anonymously" like this is totally valid and probably the best way to deal with it, if you want to canvass opinion but not necessarily initiate a flame-fest.

Yep - knew it would be the Peaks and the video is on Pink Bike.

That trail is well known and sadly a shadow of it's former self, well not so much a shadow but a great big scar only made worse and worse by people riding it irrespective of conditions. Plus it's a FP ? (but a black dashed line and not to my knowledge waymarked ? That's just a well used 'desire line' ??)

But then isn't that what's happening all over the Peak and other honey spots like Hebden ??

I predict more user conflict, trail sanitisation....and they are already happening.

Where will it end.

Ah well let's hope Cotic don't do something similar !

This is really poor...I've absolutely no idea of the companies or the trails or the footage.
Would anyone be willing to message me the details so I have a slightly better understanding please?

[quote=DickBarton ]This is really poor...I've absolutely no idea of the companies or the trails or the footage.
Would anyone be willing to message me the details so I have a slightly better understanding please?
We could all start taking guesses - or work our way through the alphabet.

I'll start with A for Airdrop.

Link to video on Pinkbike please

B for Bird 😉

Before we all start being dicks about this both have now taken steps to correct the matter.

Both should have known better but that's no reason to start speculating and bad mouthing people's livelihoods.

That trail is well known and sadly a shadow of it's former self, well not so much a shadow but a great big scar only made worse and worse by people riding it irrespective of conditions

Scar is the correct word, what surprised me is that strava (as an indication only) shows that this trail has been used more so far this year than the main BW

straightline?

Shock as enjoyable trail recieves more traffic than boggy straight line. It is a right old mess up there though, a tight singletrack is now about 12ft wide.

Having said that, I originally found the trail by guessing it's location from a video many years ago....so I'm obviously a poaching dick head. Don't ride it wet though 😉

I'll start with A for Airdrop.

😀

Oh well - I thought we could run through the alphabet for fun.

So I guess I'll just have to go to Les Arcs for a bit of Insanity now then.

And

both have now taken steps to correct the matter.

Both should have known better but that's no reason to start speculating and bad mouthing people's livelihoods.

The companies involved, I presume they took advice before they carved a line through local access agreements and someone's land, and then published it on the Internet? A mistake or two we all make, but it seems bordering on couldn't care less about such things, rather than mistake..

steel4real - Member

B for Bird

C for Cot... No wait, fanboi mode kicking in, better go with Carrera!

Lastly, imagine two local bike companies using that hill in promotional videos, photos and maps

Not read any of the thread apart form the OP but if the location is very recognisable then you need a property release if the resulting images are used for advertising or promotion.
(I occasionally use a location agent and pay to shoot at locations and get a signed release)

If I was a land owner I would bill them, I would also ask to see their liability insurance document and add to the bill if they did not have the appropriate insurance.

Why not just leave it with the companies instead of posting it up on a forum?

It's hardly earth shatteringly important is it?

Having eventually found the video I was a) a bit disappointed that it's not actually secret cheeky at all and everyone knows it's there and b) impressed at the footage (although a bit dim in places)

It wouldn't affect my buying their product at all. I didn't know they were local to me before I saw the vid so maybe I'd be more likely to buy from them. The likelihood of that video being found by some militant redsox is pretty remote and it's a pretty spot. It also proves they're locals and ride similar stuff to me. So, uh, no, to answer your question.

That said, if spesh/giant/canyon came to my backyard and started filming on cheek then it might be different (for me).

Not going to lie, I when I see videos of people riding over drystone walls, playground equipment, roadworks signs, picnic tables and loads of comments like 'We gotta go do this Ratdawg' I don't think it's a positive thing.

I normally build jumps on the footpaths, makes them more fun

How did the landowners get so much empty space all to themselves in the first place? Can't we just take it back?

I only ride Park

in

clough?

Now the the companies in question have removed the offending imagery, has the changed the op's opinion of the companies? I still don't know the area or companies but don't need to now as they have taken steps to remove the offending material, so has that restored faith in them?

Hey, I'm just glad there are those quiet unassuming people out there doing good work keeping the internet, the industry and the mtb community safe. Working in the shadows and not wanting to draw attention to....