Forum menu
For some reason, they never seem interested in my help. Maybe the management would feel as if they were fraternising with the enemy
Unfortunately I suspect you may be right there.
Walkers start fires in the woods, leave piles of stella cans, leave loads of rubbish and let their dogs shit all over paths and disturb the wildlife. Of course, most people wouldn't count them as 'walkers', despite the fact they walk, and so the issue of restricting access isn't considered. Unfortunately with cyclists, people have problems making this distinction, they see a vandal on a bike, and they think cyclist, they see a vandal on foot, and just think vandal.
+1 IanMunro
A nice Old gentalmand thatlives on the side of our local WT site was unhappy when they pulled his nice wooden fence down and put up a 6 foot high metal fence. (This happened to be on his land. so he kindly pulled it down thretened court action and allows MTb to pass through his garden into the woods, He even gave me a cup of tee this morning.
Happy new year
The argument about damage from bikes is a joke. I can't see it causes any more than walkers and certainly horses.
The local woods to be have been damaged severely by the forestry commission with land rovers. With the bad weather the wheels have caused extremely deep wheel tracks in small paths deep in to the woods. It's completely destroyed the trail.
To make it worse I fell off as my front wheel get wedged in one of these wheel ruts ad I couldn't get out quick enough.
People have rode this area for decades and it's been discouraged/tolerated. They will never suceed in stopping people.
Just because you've ridden somewhere unchallenged for years doesn't mean that you have a right to do so, especially on privately owned land.
If there's no public rights of way across the land for cyclists, that's it, end of. No arguments.
Yes the fact that it continues to be used by horses and peds is a pain in the proverbial, but the landowner is perfectly entitled to do this. It may seem unfair and it is, but life isn't fair. Suck it up, stop moaning like a set of bee-hatches and ride somewhere else.
And as for not doing damage - cobblers. You may not be doing any physical damage but you're damaging the reputation of the sport, and leaving those of us who do chose to ride responsibly to try to argue the toss.
I'll bet that 90% of the moaners and whingers on here have absolutely no clue about what their rights are, so before you chuck your toys out, get your facts straight.
That's a very high horse you have there johnellison!
Don't really care what my rights are John. Quite happy to follow existing paths in the woods and ignore those people who say I shouldn't be there just because I'm riding a bike.
Don't really care if my choice to do this impacts on you as a "responsible" rider. Life isn't fair; you suck it up, I'll make it better for myself.
I ride wherever I want.
I don't see why you wouldn't just ride where you like. If you've spent more than a couple of months in Scotland you'll realise how ridiculous the situation down in England is. You are not upsetting anyone who is in their right mind by going along a path with a push bike. No normal person objects to cyclists in the woods. They need to get over you being there, keep riding and enjoy yourself.
Scotland is large and sparsely populated. England is mostly rammed full of us lot. There seems a direct correlation between this rammage and aggro. We need rules to help us get along but if you feel like breaking them just do it politely. Nothing does our cause more damage than a swearing ranting arse. A polite response to the 'you can't cycle here' might do some good. Have a discussion, assure the person you aren't a threat, just a normal person out enjoying yourself. If there isn't enough room to pass ensure it's you that dismounts and moves out the way. That way you take the wind out of their sails, open up dialogue, and they are more likely to think 'he seemed nice, and wasn't really doing any harm'. Next time they might just smile at a biker.
Yes the fact that it continues to be used by horses and peds is a pain in the proverbial, but the landowner is perfectly entitled to do this. It may seem unfair and it is, but life isn't fair. Suck it up, stop moaning like a set of bee-hatches and ride somewhere else. And as for not doing damage - cobblers. You may not be doing any physical damage but you're damaging the reputation of the sport, and leaving those of us who do chose to ride responsibly to try to argue the toss.
Or, I could just continue to ride wherever I choose and leave you to "argue the toss". It may seem unfair and it is, but life isn't fair.
Well put 🙂
Of course, the 'walkers'* only have their rights thanks to a mass trespass and they'd do well to remember that!
* that makes me thing if The Walking Dead, which does sum up some ramblers!
Of course, the 'walkers'* only have their rights thanks to a mass trespass and they'd do well to remember that!
This is important to remember - this isn't a fight with walkers, the problem is with landowners.
WillC9999 - MemberScotland is large and sparsely populated. England is mostly rammed full of us lot.
Bit of a myth, this- it sounds convincing, but you have to realise that most people benefitting from our superior access are doing so near the cities (for obvious reasons) and in fairly specific attractive areas- ironically we do have massive amounts of empty space, and they're still empty.
England's countryside can feel rammed full but mostly because people are corralled together- improving access can only reduce that "rammed full" feeling and take the strain off the limited areas you're currently allowed to use.
I dunno, I just cannot help but think Scotland's progressive access laws just wouldn't work in somewhere about the same size but with 10x the population. Same thing as when you are out walking and see no one all day, then when you do you go out of your way to meet to shoot the breeze. In the Lakes it's head down and plough through.
We do need laws where it's sensible (like stopping 4x4s causing serious damage to ruined RUPPs) but need to separate the irrational fear of cycles from the actual. Instead of 'no cycling' how about 'please use this area respectfully and consider others'. This would cover everyone, walkers, horse riders, cyclists, dog walkers etc. In other words, deal with the ****s (or all sorts) but don't prejudice everyone.
I'd replace the signs with signs that said "no signposts"
that'll confuse 'em
Don't really care what my rights are John. Quite happy to follow existing paths in the woods and ignore those people who say I shouldn't be there just because I'm riding a bike.
Don't really care if my choice to do this impacts on you as a "responsible" rider. Life isn't fair; you suck it up, I'll make it better for myself.
That's about one of the most selfish things I've ever seen written on here, & there's some awful cr@p gets posted.
You must be a wonderful person to have as a neighbour... 🙄
Perhaps you need to get some perspective Mrlebowski. I am talking about riding a bicycle in some woods. Why you think this makes me a bad neighbour is beyond me.
Well perhaps it's the bit where you basically said screw you to the other guy if what you did impacted negatively on him?
Seems pretty self-explanatory to me..
threads like this depress me { and why did you need to ask the dude what they meant ]
We all get a bit upset about MXers ignoring the rules
We need better access and better representation for sure but if you think this attitude[ ignoring all aspects of officialdom and carrying on regardless ]is along term solution that will help us all in the long run they you are deluded
All it shows me is that a reasonable % of the MTB communities attitude to the countryside is **** you I will do as i please.
Its not helpful.
Yes, that would basically be my thinking when riding a bicycle in some woods. Real issues which impact on my neighbours would be something different.
A more realistic summary, junkyard, would be that a reasonable % of the MTB community feels comfortable making decisions based on their own judgement rather than that of organisations which represent other user groups.
After going out for a walk in my local woods with an abundance of signs at every entrance saying no horses or cycles, I also saw horse droppings and hoof prints and some faint tyre tracks although not as much as I could see footprints it was very mulched with dead leaves and muddy. I thought if I went for a cheeky night ride in the woods no one would be none the wiser. Not decided if I will yet.
Maybe wise to ask for cycling only paths
on the trails you guys have made yourself.
I know Epping Forest we have constant moans from the Horse riders
blaming cyclists tearing up the paths but mainly ridden by horses in the wet.
We also have to negotiate walkers using the well ridden trails made by us and when your startled
as much to there surprise you meet face to face, saying your ridding to fast?
When they have made specific walking paths around Epping itself.
We need better access and better representation for sure but if you think this attitude[ ignoring all aspects of officialdom and carrying on regardless ]is along term solution that will help us all in the long run they you are deludedAll it shows me is that a reasonable % of the MTB communities attitude to the countryside is **** you I will do as i please.
Its not helpful.
The alternative however is to not go mountain biking. At least not anywhere different or interesting.
I live in an area with a population not unlike Scotland. I can pedal to the other side of the country and barely see another soul. Yet there are very few bridleways and legal rights of way. There are probably no more than a dozen within short local riding distance. And half of them lead into dead ends. I say dead ends, they turn into footpaths. So you can't legally travel from A to B. And this is the issue. You can ride them all in a day.
Meanwhile there are hundreds of public footpaths. They adorn each and every corner. They criss-cross and form an elaborate and impossible to complete network.
When I walk, and when I ride, I do so for the same reasons. I just see a bike as being more efficient. Like many of us I'm a walker [i]and[/i] a cyclist. The cycle is nothing but a harmless aid. And so I often take it walking...
The alternative however is to not go mountain biking.
no its not there may be a lot of distance between your view and rich penny's
A more realistic summary, junkyard, would be that a reasonable % of the MTB community feels comfortable making decisions based on their own judgement rather than that of organisations which represent other user groups.
Forgive me but i read this ai will do what i want whether it harms others or not but you spin it how you like
Don't really care what my rights are John. Quite happy to follow existing paths in the woods and ignore those people who say I shouldn't be there just because I'm riding a bike.
Don't really care if my choice to do this impacts on you as a "responsible" rider. Life isn't fair; you suck it up, I'll make it better for myself.
We need better access and better representation for sure but if you think this attitude[ ignoring all aspects of officialdom and carrying on regardless ]is along term solution that will help us all in the long run they you are deluded
If you think that blindly obeying all officialdom is a long term solution which will help us all in the long run then you are deluded.
Junkyard, rather than reading something into it maybe I'll explain further.
Doesn't mean that I ride wherever I want. Just means that when the only determining factor on my legitimate presence is my use of feet or wheels I feel comfortable using either and I'm happy to disregard the opinion of people who'd discriminate on that basis.
If you think that blindly obeying all officialdom is a long term solution which will help us all in the long run then you are deluded
If I say that then feel feel to remind me.
If it was organised mass protest with a goal of Scottish type access then I am in. If it is just riding where you feel whatever the consequences then I am out [ whilst we are clarifying positions]
For example I live ear Healey Nab
I have descended fromt hat hill for more than 20 years- its a footpath - its a field really]
Not a problem but they recently built a Downhill track in there and then put up signs saying not to go that way, respect the routes and the granting of facilities etc and it became an issue.
I stopped riding it because it reflected badly on the community and, in particular, the users there - I dont ride there tbh anyway though I have tried it.
I could have carried on doing what I had always done without anyone ever complaining but I stopped as I thought it was for the greater good if a little personally inconvenient.
RP why not re write your view a fourth time so we can all be clear what you mean? 😉
I get your point its better made this time [ or my listening has improved]
For me it depends Locally I know footpaths i will ride - hardpacked old cart routes and really an old road etc and Bridleways i wont as they are just paths across moors
Happy Trails and it would be nice is were all responsible and could ride footpaths - like that will happen.
I regularly ride in woodlands that are not meant to be accessed by bike and I've had no confrontations in about 10 years of being there. We've never built anything but the place is full of natural bombholes drops and jumps. We've always been respectful to other users and waited till they are clear or are aware of what we are planning to do.
If they want to stay on that particular area we'll just move on to the next area.
I have been challenged about access on my mates farm by the local rambling club as we had the old orchard to build jumps. The public right if way went around the orchard not through it.
To me the people with the biggest voice seem to want exclusive access to the countryside, I'm of the opinion of as long as your considerate of those around you then they'll generally be little conflict.
I would not stop riding my local woods if they put signs up to say I couldn't .
Just because you've ridden somewhere unchallenged for years doesn't mean that you have a right to do so, especially on privately owned land.If there's no public rights of way across the land for cyclists, that's it, end of. No arguments.
Whereas this is the root of it, you're not allowed to say this on STW because it would mean behaving like a grown up rather than a spoilt little brat having a hissy-fit
😀
Im with RichPenny and Leth on this.
Just continue to ride, consideratly to others and the environment for sure.
Attempting to change the attitudes of some of these who dont like us will be like trying to convince the Pope that homosexuality is actually OK.
Dont wast your breath - life is too short, get out on your bike.
burn the signs and blame the teenagers! if in doubt, always blame teenagers.
When I walk, and when I ride, I do so for the same reasons. I just see a bike as being more efficient. Like many of us I'm a walker and a cyclist. The cycle is nothing but a harmless aid. And so I often take it walking..
Funnily enough this is pretty much how it works in Scotland, a bicycle is an aid to walking so access isn't discriminated between walkers and cyclists for this reason, legally in Scotland - for the purposes of access - they are one and the same
Is there any documented cases of someone prosecuted for cycling on a footpath or cycling where there's no public access rights at all? I've searched the web to no avail.
I wonder if something's changed in Woodland Trust policy? Some laminated A4 'no cycling' signs recently appeared nearby. I had to chuckle running through yesterday - a new path appearing next to the old one, with many hours of careful step work now falling into misuse. There's an even older path taking the original fall line though the middle, that's now completely overgrown.
Most of the erosion is done by rain, plus a bit of feet, a small amount of horse and a smaller still amount of tyres. The signs are gone now though. They'd have a job banning rain, so I guess bikes are easier to blame.
Is there any documented cases of someone prosecuted for cycling on a footpath or cycling where there's no public access rights at all? I've searched the web to no avail.
The question has been raised on here before and the general consensus then was that there haven't been any succesful prosecutions, though I wouldn't quote that.
What is clear, is that it's a civil matter between you and the landowner. And if it ever reached a courtroom, it's not entirely clear if a bicycle would be seen as a 'natural accompaniment', for which case law would provide a useful guide.
One problem with erecting signs like this is the conflict it causes. Between people sharing the same space for the same reasons. From first hand experience they help support prejudices.
I ride wherever there is path and public access is permitted.
However I will choose not to ride places where the trail is heavily eroded / gopping. Sadly many of there trails would benefit from being left alone during the wetter parts of the year, yet the horse brigade (amongst others) choose to ride through the winter, turning some of them in to quagmires which are difficult to walk and impossible to ride. There are some lovely woods near me which are NT owned and there is a large concrete block with a No Riding sign (referring to horse riders), which is ironically is right next to the most churned up trail in the woods. They choose to ignore requests too.....