We understand the legality of our actions TJ. It's may send your moral compass spinning, but what we do does NOT damage mountainbiking for people who ride mountain bikes. I couldn't care less what some stuffy council bod thinks of our past-time. Here in Norn Iron, if we didn't illegally build trails (any type of trail) there would be nowhere to ride. Our FC have no interest in playing ball (like the mainlanders seem to) and only last year they proposed a bye law to turn anyone who set foot in their forests into a criminal.
I think you are missing the point. If 'mountain bikers' get the reputation as people who turn up on other people's land and start digging it up for their own purposes then it has the potential to damage access for all. When it is suggested than the forest get closed to the public completely, it will end up with open to walkers only - "because they cause little damage" (in the eyes of the walkers and land owners). Mountain biking didn't start with people building trails - it began with people riding on existing paths/trails/bridleways. Man made bike trails are a more recent 'invention', and have value as part of the total range of activities but they are not the be-all-and-end-all. If there is no really technical skills area locally and you don't want to travel, perhaps you bought the wrong bike?
I'd have thought you were likely to have more impact on 'officialdom' by showing that people are travelling to the mainland to do this and the tourism figures for the 7 stanes etc. You should be able to "sell" mountain biking infrastructure on your side of the sea quite easily. What won't convince them is if they think they will put in facilities and then mountain bikers will come and modify/extend on their land.
There are a lot of people who are quite happy to pick up a spade and do some building, and generally seem happy to comment on how officials are just not interested etc. I wonder how many of them have ever been to see their local councillor and MP (or MLA) to discuss mountain bike access and facilities? In my experience these guys are looking for 'causes' to back, and one that (i) appeals to young people; (ii) encourages people to be active; (iii) is out doors and can involve both rural an urban communities etc - is pretty much ideal. When you can point to success stories at other locations it is all the easier for them to say "we want a piece of that".
Or you could just move to a part of the UK that generally welcomes responsible mountain bikers, is well supplied with trail centres. Anyone any suggestions?diggatron - These trails have been destroyed, and the replacement trails will begin their construction next weekend no doubt - all to be destroyed again in 3 or so years! Its just the UK, if we don't like it we should just move to British Columbia Canada.
Yes what you do with illegal trail building does damage mountainbiking as it gives the anti mountain bikers an open goal to score in - "look at the damage they do"
Northren Ireland may be a bit different and I did say the moral position was arguable. However in the case we were discussing at lordswood their can be no doubt. People like WCA who are locals are trying hard to get legal trails and illegal builders put this back
I couldn't care less what some stuffy council bod thinks of our past-time. Here in Norn Iron, if we didn't illegally build trails (any type of trail) there would be nowhere to ride. Our FC have no interest in playing ball (like the mainlanders seem to) and only last year they proposed a bye law to turn anyone who set foot in their forests into a criminal.
What a stinking attitude, in the end clearly the guys who built the trails are the one who are responsible for all the destruction.
If they had kept off then none of it would have happened.
What a stinking attitude
I can appreciate that it is hard to comprehend just how backward my country is.
My attitude is born from years of frustration. Guys have been working hard behind the scenes for decades. Meetings with FC, councils, funding bodies, trail designers etc. Some projects got as far as getting the go-ahead from all concerned, funding in place, trails marked out - only for the FC pull the plug at the last minute. Some MPs and councillors were keen to jump on the bandwagon, grab a photo opportunity and a few headlines, then scurry off, not giving the projects a second thought.
The jumps above were only knocked down when one of the 'official' chaps decided to show a local councillor and Dafydd Davies some of the homebrew trails around belfast. Plans are now in motion to rebuild the jumps (although they'll likely be less rad) along with an xc loop. It's only taken 10 years.
The illegal building will continue because the official stuff will not be challenging enough for the guys who build.
Isn't this what happened with Ashton Court? Lots of unauthorised trails which lead to the formal recognition of the trials as the original Timberland trail.
It's not quite the same situation. The riding taking place in AC was nice accessible singletrack. Any jumps or DH there have always been given short shrift. Anyone remember the doubles that sprang up in Keeper's Wood a few years back, and got bulldozed just as quickly?
I do have some sympathy for the norn Ireland folk given the background. Its not the same situation as the OP tho
Back when I was at uni in Southampton, '97-'01, the jumps and DH were being flattened too. There would always be a rumour that a kid from Lordshill had crashed on a jump, an ambulance called and the FC had had to flattened them because of H&S. The singletrack was never touched though, maybe because it had evolved naturally and there weren't obvious berms or jumps. Lordswood was well known for burnt out stolen cars and bikes, kids racing scooters, locals taking drugs, fires and generally a place you didn't talk to the locals in. It must be frustrating not being able to get agreement for building as this would seam to be one of the few positive things that happen in the wood!
@Euro, I can see that's a lot of work to build those jumps and I take my hat off to you to have the skill to ride it.
But .... those dirt jumps (not mountain biking in my book) are going to attract a huge amount of negative attention and in a way that you shouldn't be surprised leads to all the trails getting flattened. I have to say in a selfish way I am worried about this building trend as the trails I can and do ride are at risk. On a favourite and reasonably technical trail I rode today the existing double/gap and been joined by two 6-8ft dirt jumps like your own
building illegal jumps does piss landowners off, it is their land after all. I have seen it in my locality, it happens again and again. If your going to build illegal tracks, modifying badger and deer tracks is one thing, building large doubles is crucifying yourself. I accept that there are occasions when no amount of talk will help but such is life. Does mountain biking mean large wheel BMXes or riding a bike in the countryside?
[i] Does mountain biking mean large wheel BMXes or riding a bike in the countryside?[/i]
Both, depending on my mood. That's why after getting fed up with my unauthorised builds being destroyed I found somewhere I could build them with permission. Hopefully this will leave Lordswood to develop into a more single track XC place and the trails won't get destryed again.
awh - Brings back memories. At lot of work has gone into improving Lordswood. Far less stolen mopeds and no burnt out cars for a year or so.
We (SUMBC) had a good relationship with the ranger that covered Lordswood. I met and spoke to him several times in the woods. There was never any problem with us using the singletrack in there, it was only the jumps that the were the problem and we didn't build them. (The DHers might have a bit, I don't think dirt jumpers had been invented!) It was impossible for there to be any secret jumps or trails in the wood as he knew them too well. New trails did appear (or evolve) but as long as nothing dangerous was built he didn't mind. Sounds like the current level of building got too much and they could no longer turn a blind eye to it.
awh - Was that the older bloke or the young ex army guy with the bent nose? The older bloke is the one who we started doing trail work with until the legal team stepped in. He was a top bloke. The young one with the bent nose could read a rule book but appeared unable to think. Older bloke got promoted, bent nose got moved to the Isle of Wight I think. Next bloke seemed sensible but his hands were tied with regard to building stuff.
The older guy, he didn't mind us cycling in there on the off rights-of-way trails or the occasional new trail appearing as long as there was no conflict with the wildlife or other users. SUMBC were responsible for reporting a couple of fires and stolen then abandoned cars, and were generally keen to help him. I don't think it's right for people to take the black or white view that trail building in there is damaging the reputation of mountain bikers etc when there had been a policy of tolerance and a network of trails had evolved under it.
He was a good bloke. He was talking about putting as short track in for motor bikes to contain the problem as well as working with me on MTB trails. Shame he got promoted.
I don't take a black and white view of things either. Laws are for those too stupid to think about what is right and act accordingly. But I guess that is just the free thinking anarchist in me.
awh - trailbuilding [i]without permission[/i]
I also have no issue with riding on footpaths.
its the arrogance of those who think they can do what they want and who commit criminal damage I abhor
TJ - ?When does moving a fallen branch or squashing a mole hill become criminal damage?
I helped the FC in Lordswood create 'Water Diversion Features' to stop erosion by water down the steeper path ways. This was done without consent. Was that criminal damage?
I showed the FC whatI had done and the thanbked me. Post event consent. Does this affect the answer to the first question?
These wate rdiversion featresa happened to look like nice little kickers to MTBers and were used as jumps. Does this change the answer to the first 2 questions?
I originally wanted to build some jumps on the down hill trailes that wouldn't get levelled so used double talk to achieve this. DOes this affect any of the previous answers?
Basiczally is intent or action what makes me guilty?
The trails I saw develop when I was cycling there I wouldn't classify it as trail-building as we know it today. It was moving a log so you could cycle all the way down the track the forestry vehicle had made, which over the months developed into a trail, riding the animal tracks which then evolved to be wide enough to easily cycle down, brushing the leaves aside to define a route under the pine trees etc. The ranger could have ask us to not use them but didn't. Large jumps and berms I agree are trail building.
Digging artificial features WCA - IMO of course
awh - You describe perfectly 90% of what is in Lordswood. Recently though there has been a ramp up n the level of jumps and berms. Do you remembner WWonderland before it was flatterned? That is what provoked the latest lot of flaterning.
WCA - I've not been there since about 2005, did it exist then? But I remember the jump spot near the cross roads that would develop then get flattened, then appear again.. I understand that. What's surprised me is reading that FC has also removed the singletrack which has had a long history of evolving without conflict in the wood.
The jump spot near the cross roads was indeed Wonderland.
They haven't actually destroyed the trails, except the workmans, they have topped and tails the trails with trees across trhe entrances. Move the trees abd after as few metres the trails are untouched.
This thread has got me thinking I should give it a couple of months then come for a ride down memory lane!
The saga of Lordswood continues....... and has done for the past 10 years plus - jumps built, jumps flattened, more jumps built, then flattened....and so it goes on. I was at uni there from '96 to '99, and rode Lordswood most weeks so saw when the first stuff was being built, and the workmans run was the first 'big' run of the lot (as I recall). I got the impression that it was all pretty much tolerated, having ridden there again for the first time in ages in 2010, and saw there was LOADS more stuff built.
Pity, but have to say it had all got a bit extreme in places (for me!!!). Everyone has an opinion on non-sanctioned trail building, and I guess the builders will just keep building!
You can try sueing a landowner if you wish but there has never been a successful case as far as I am aware.this is a myth put around - gawd knows why. Stop perpetuating it
I'm afraid its not a myth TJ. A lot of the angst within the FC emanates from a case at Delamare where they were sued for £12 million admittedly unsuccessfully. The problem they have is that they carry no insurance as a crown organisation, and any successful cases will be settled straight out of operational budgets after the contingency fund of £2million for all eventualities is used up. In essence they could if they lose such a case literally be forced to sell off forest estate to pay the bill.
For this reason they operate under a guidance schemed called OGB37, which dictates what they can and can’t do. One item of which is that where they are aware of trails in use in the forest they have responsibility and a duty of care to the users. If they are unable to fulfil the duty of care stipulations in OGB 37 they are obliged to permanently close those trails. In FC-land that means driving a harvester along the length of them, which is pretty much what seems to have happened at Lordswood.
However, there is a chink of light, in that also in the same document there is a direction to try to engage with trail users rather than destroy trails, as they are aware that rebuild is the likely outcome. From the sound of it and reading the sign at Lordswood, you seem to have a situation where they are planting on leased land. They still have the same responsibilities, but not necessarily control. We have had similar issues at Thetford. Unfortunately, ignorance on the part of people riding into an area used for shooting in shooting season has caused that whole area of forest to be lost to MTB, not to mention other huge tracts of land owned by the same landowner
Work with them, and if they say no try to find alternatives, but whatever happens work with. If you need any help contact me.
Hmm, came across some serious jump building yesterday, Makes these jumps look like molehills, hey Jambalaya? Yesterday's jumps on quiet-ish section of well know MTB area in South that is open/tolerates MTB use. They cross, then run parallel with a trail that while not well known is certainly not completely secret!! Even we know about it. The size of the jumps made me feel slightly sick just to look at - but the potential for serious injury on the wooden drops and especially the dirt jumps was/is blindingly obvious. I hope that doesn't cause aggro with the landowners especially as this is in arguably the best but least known area of the region. Chapeau to the builders and future riders for their skill but I hope you know what you are doing re landuse/access conflicts*. At least you chose the correct side of the rode and a hidden slope!! Take care on those jumps!!
* n.b. point 8 in the code of conduct that we are meant to follow!?!
My main point in this thread wasn't to get into the morality of jump building but more my disgust and the over the top level of destruction undertaken to remove the jumps/trails - that and if the law was changed (ride at riders risk not landowners) then the justification for this type of action by the FC would be removed.
On a related note - I always wondered if the the farmer who has the motorcross track / jumps over to the west (near star wars) would be interested in allowing other forest users onto his land
WCA have you ever approached him? I suppose with the Sports centre onboard there is less of a need.
Bermbandit - so it is a myth. No one has sucessfully sued a landowner.
Berm Bandit - MemberA lot of the angst within the FC emanates from a case at Delamare where they were sued for £12 million [b]admittedly unsuccessfully[/b].
Which is what I said. Your post says exactly what I said. If they don't know about it they have no liability, if they do know about it then they have a duty of care and as such trails need to be built to usual standards.
Stop perpetuating the myth. A landowner is not and cannot be laible for injuries caused but jumps on their land they are unawware of.
DT 78 - there is no need to change the law - its quite sensible
On a related note - I always wondered if the the farmer who has the motorcross track / jumps over to the west (near star wars) would be interested in allowing other forest users onto his land
DT78, do you mean the field with the footpath along the side, that takes you up to the services at Rownhams? Here [url= http://goo.gl/maps/yrzh ]Back of Services[/url]
I'd be interested in helping with formal approach to the landowner?