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 people are making is that it's hard to make any sort of valid judgement in an evidential vacuumThe point of my thread is at what point does a brands potentially negative actions influence you?
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
....does that mean they're going to Edit the video 😮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 - MemberB 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....
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.
True, but access issues are different to environmental protection. If we're being asked to not ride certain areas to protect the environment there, then it's fair enough to raise issues as to whether the environment is worth protecting. In the case of most open moorland I question whether it is. It could easily be argued that these areas should be prioritised in favour of woodland and other areas which have greater biodiversity and ecological and environmental benefit.
Wouldn't bother me in the slightest. I'm perefectly happy to break the rules on where i ride, so i'm also happy to watch other people doing it too.
Mrsmiths point about how recogniseable the privately owned place is is worth repeating, as OP mentioned that it was identifiable. If you had a bit of trail that had unidentifiable trees and bushes as a backdrop its unlikely to be an issue. Edit tidy up, I clearly cant type on phone on train ..
Well the video is still the same how is that
?both have now taken steps to correct the matter
I am also in the group of what video, what company and what spot, but will go look through pinkbike on my lunch break!
My thoughts, there are other disciplines of cycling which do not care for the owners permission, id says these are trials in urban areas and BMX street, as long as I can remember videos and magazine photos of people riding things have been in circulation.
This leads me to my next point, should the landowners do more to direct traffic and protect "their" land? for example, whilst we are calling out a brand, have we looked through the hashtags on social media for so called influencers riding this spot? do we need to start thinking about reaching out to other sports which use these areas of our country such as fell running? I'll admit, I havent got a clue where I can and cannot ride in the countryside, but signage certainly does help me!
Classic stw hand wringing. I'm happy enough to ride that trail, and plenty of footpaths around me, so I'm not going to throw stones at others that do. I find sexist advertising way more irresponsible than this, and starting this post was always going to draw attention to the respective companies.
So am I right in thinking that people who recognise the place already ride it and it is a Strava segment but its the people making the video who are irresponsible? Now I have seen the video it looks nice but I have no idea where it is so wont ride it. It seems to me a classic case of STW hand wringing
It is exactly the section of trail I thought it would be!
The brands responsible are being a bit irresponsible - they are doing slo-mos with 'roost' ripping up and flying everywhere - not a brilliant advert for sustainable access, granted. Also, that particular trail is very visible from numerous main roads, so have dudes with cameras up there for an extended period doing sections over and over will have been obvious, not cheeky.
On the flipside is thepodge's very, very protective attitude to that particular trail. In the past he has told me off for even mentioning that place in passing and it seemed to me that it was a case of "them there trails is for locals only".
Here's the deal - I have ridden that bit maybe 2/3 times and it is 'good'. But I didn't skid around corners for the hell of it, didn't video it and put it on youtube and didn't stand around in the nearby pub and loudly exchange fist-pumps whilst braying about how 'stoked' I was to have ridden it. There is an obvious and very well known legit way down that hill, and it has been given a lot of very good attention of the last few years by local trails groups and riders - to the point where I actually prefer the legit trail in anything but bone-dry weather.
As before - cheeky means cheeky, not blatant!
Is it this one?
https://www.pinkbike.com/news/golden-hour-airdrop-video-2017.html
I have no idea where it is but looks fun 🙂
So OP's problem is really he's riding my local trail....
