Forum menu
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?