[Closed] Ramblers on Forestry MTB Trails

you are putting your case in such a sanctimonious fashion that it makes me want to go out and run over some babies

Simple answer then...fence off man-made mountain bike trails. A nice bit of red and white tape up and down the trail will make me feel even more like Steve Peat 🙂

About 2 years ago i talked to a couple of orienteers who were walking round Stainburn with the mountain bike tracks marked on their map. Having said that looking at their website the map isn't listed as available so maybe they realised the folly of running an event where user conflict could arise.

Cannock is a significantly larger area over which to run an event - Stainburn is a very small woodland. Only one other track through it apart from the bike trails and even that isn't marked on the OS map as a 'legal' right of way.

Cannock is a significantly larger area over which to run an event - Stainburn is a very small woodland. Only one other track through it apart from the bike trails and even that isn't marked on the OS map as a 'legal' right of way.

But that's back to the OP's point about FC land - the Warren Plantation and Norwood are access land under the CROW act. People ahve the right to walk where ever they like in them. That's a legal right - not that they're just allowed by the landowner. How do we manage mtb trails sensibly where walkers have a legal right of access over them?

Didn't realise I would have to spell it out! You said mountain biking was like motor sport - I was pointing out that it is totally different because motor sport takes place in a controlled environment, not a free public space.

For the love of christ. Were you kept behind in school perchance? That's the point I'm trying to make. Motorsport takes place in a controlled environment, and I believe mountain bikers should be able to take part in their sport in a controlled environment!

I've nearly run into people several times on the Marin, but that's the only marked trail where i've had problems. One guy with two dogs did end up with my bike on top of one. Pointing out that given the choice of sheer drop and trees, or dog, I was only going to take one option funnily enough didn't adhere him to me (after stating that it was a dedicated MTB descent). In the end I pointed out that next time (and by walking there, there would be a next time) he may meet someone even more careless than me, and it could be him, not the dog with an angry rider on top of him...

We totally agree, BoardinBob - its just that you think an open trail is a closed, controlled environment. Which it obviously isn't.

If you want to let it rip enter a DH race. Otherwise you just have to ride with a little observation and consideration. Maybe even notice some wildlife, enjoy the view, that sort of thing. Let's face it, it only means on blind corners and hidden dips.

[i]even if there were a strict legal exclusion (which is unlikely) you could still encounter: fallen trees and rocks, animals, children & people who cannot read English or are too stupid to understand[/i]

Sounds like a similar argument I've heard from the red sock brigade:

Even where there is a strict legal exclusion you could still encounter mountain bikers who cannot read English or are too stupid to understand 😉

its just that you think an open trail is a closed, controlled environment. Which it obviously isn't.

MTB specific trail centres are as close to a closed, controlled environment any of us are going to get, so its unsurprising if there's those of us who treat it as such. I have little sympathy with the view that just because some belligerent sod/idiot with a dog [i]might[/i] be on a marked red/black mtb trail on the wrong side of a blind corner in exactly the part of trail which a rider cant stop in time with the given visibility that we should all ride such trails on tenterhooks. Where's the fun in that? I have to do that on the other 99% of trails that I ride becuase they are explicitly mixed user.

and I believe mountain bikers should be able to take part in their sport in a controlled environment!

but in order for that belief to be realised you need a crowd of enforcers, it will not happen through wishful thinking!

MTB specific trail centres are as close to a closed, controlled environment any of us are going to get

Christ this is a recipe for disaster. At least on Bridleways walkers are aware there are other users. If its on a closed trail where a rider thinks hes got the whole direction to himself. Well its abit like thinking you are on a road rally with the roads closed only to discover that the road isnt really closed to everyone the other way.

Which idiots allowed this to happen?

No-one on this thread ever pushed their bike back up the trail going the wrong way to re-do a section? Even if you are fully aware of bikers coming the other way its still the same crime as its a one way system, whether you're a rider or a wlaker.

Thing I don't understand is following a trail in a pine forest with no views whilst walking must be dull as dish water so don't understand why walkers do it. The same applies to riding a bike there but the riding makes up for it a bit.

you mean like those grommets "sessioning" spookywoods so that there has to be a sign at the top now saying dont ****ing do it...?

That sounds like a good example

But that's back to the OP's point about FC land - the Warren Plantation and Norwood are access land under the CROW act. People ahve the right to walk where ever they like in them. That's a legal right - not that they're just allowed by the landowner. How do we manage mtb trails sensibly where walkers have a legal right of access over them?

I asked about having walkers excluded from the MTB trails after a couple of (fairly low key) incidents on the trails. I was informed by FE ranger that it was not their policy to exclude user groups. The header board does state that it's an MTB trail and walkers should take care, avoid, give way or something.

You're right that it is CROW land as they had to apply and sign temporary closures / restrictions during recent felling work.

TBH at Stainburn riders are either going at slow speeds due to it's technical nature or, where it's fast e.g. the Descent Line, it's so open and has pretty good sight lines that this hasn't been a huge issue.

Personally, I take a share and share alike view to trail use, especially given my liberal disregard for access laws / trail categorisations elsewhere 😉 I also ride with the (earlier stated approach) that if you can't see and can't stop you're at fault. I love a good hoon but there's a time and a place. Good riding means looking ahead, for the trail conditions and features at least, but at the same time that means you should know if your sight line has gone or there's a walker / dog / kid etc around.

It's a small world and we all need to share (how trite ;-). We aren't going to get access to everywhere else if at the same time we want to exclude people from "our" playgrounds. And, no, I don't mean organised OAP rambling parties at CyB 😉 But there's a reasonable compromise.

Oh, and IIRC the orienteering actually happened in Norwood Edge side (there were control points and trees sprayed up for a while).

MTB specific trail centres are as close to a closed, controlled environment any of us are going to get, so its unsurprising if there's those of us who treat it as such

They probably are as close as we mioght get, but they're a long way from being what most might consider a "closed" environment. There's all sorts of daft buggers - not least bloody riders 😉 - who might be in "the wrong place at the wrong time", IMO.

Talking of "bloody riders" when we were repairing the top of the Descent Line I nearly had some twonk ride into me despite the lads who saw him set off and told him there were others working on the trail lower down.

Mountainbike community my arse 😉

I asked about having walkers excluded from the MTB trails after a couple of (fairly low key) incidents on the trails. I was informed by FE ranger that it was not their policy to exclude user groups.

I take it they would be OK with riders taking this approach to footpaths on their land then?

glenp - Member
But that just means that you want to treat them as closed and controlled, not that they are.

Well said.

Advice for the hotheads who want to race down uncontrolled tracks. It can be very expensive if you injure a human - a finding of negligence against you can ruin your financial life for a long time. After all people cost much more to repair than a Mercedes, and they don't get written off. There's lots of Personal Injury lawyers out there who will sue you for free.

If you want controlled tracks, why not organise yourself and some mates for marshalling and approach some landowners?

great frightener there epicyclo.

Got an example for us of someone being sued for hitting some rambler on the trail and being ruined in the process?

In any case the contributory negligence of a numpty walking a deisgnated MTB trail Im betting would go a hell of a long way towards mitigating the costs of any remotely theoretical negligence claim against a rider.

It would be nice to think that the motivation for not hurting another person was that it isn't good to hurt another person, not that it might cost money!

It would be nice to think that the motivation for not getting hurt by walking on a MTB trail was that it isn't good to get hurt, not that they might not win the negligence claim.

Stoner - the negligence would be on the part of the rider wrongly assuming that a dedicated mtb trail is a race track. It is merely a trail whose primary purpose is for riding a push bike on - nothing in the concept mandates unlimited speed and abandonment of care.

I do think that many people have the selfish attitude that a marked cycle trail is for them only.
1. Just like the road, you have to be able to stop at any time. Failure to be able to do so is inconsiderate, cretinous and totally harmful to cyclings image.
2. Cycle trails are not marked exclusively for cycles. They just indicate the places where the FC want you to go and that the route is relatively suitable for cyclist use.
3. Expecting or wanting total exclusive use indicates total incomprehension of how the country side works.
4 What a shame if more sign posts are needed. the countryside is littered with this sort of visual pollution.

says you, glenp.

Im pointing out there there's plenty of people using the trails in a manner that reasonably* assumes that some twit isnt going to be walking on it. If it were ever to get to court (and I think even if the chances of a single case getting to court at some point in the next 20 years are close to 100%, I seriously doubt it would be a common occurrence) then undoubtedly much of the arguing will be to define where on the line of responsibility the accident lies - and I am pretty sure it wont rest wholly on the rider.

* reasonably by practice, advertising, design etc etc

Ramblers use mtb trails on purpose when the mtb trail is better than the nearby footpath.

They even have a website dedicated to using mtb trails

[url= http://www.cheekytrails.co.uk/ ]I think it's this one[/url]

matt -
1) much as its cretinous and inconsiderate for a pedestrian to be found wandering around on the outseide lane of a dual carriageway. Your point is?

2) Cycle Trails may well not be marked exclusively for use by MTBs since as mentioned above FE do not have a policy of user exlusion, however since the trails have been designed and built SPECIFICALLY for the use of MTBs there is, to some extent, and implied expectation of some degree of exclusivity.

3) Expectation of exclusivity is explicitly written into the Scottish access rights legislation - do you reckon they've misunderstood the nature of the countryside?

4) I dont see the need for any more signposts - just a clearer policy.

ditto stoner's comment, the rambler could be viewed as being just as negligent for ignoring the signs, the mtb'ers crime would be for assuming the walker would follow the advice on the sign.

TBH I was trying this out the other day, on hardpack form 20mph with a HR 2.35 /semi slick HR 2.35 combo I could still pull up pretty sharpishly as long as i didnt skid. And I cant think of that many blind corners that you an take at 20+MPH.

Boardin Bob

While you may have an expectation that you should be able to ride as fast as you want on a designated mountain bike trail without having to worry about other users, specifically walkers, the reality is that the access legislation in Scotland that grants you access grants other users access too. The key is to act responsibly. Whether it's the risk from colliding with an injured rider on the trail, a family having a picnic or tree fall, common sense would suggest that you perhaps throttle back a little in your quest for speed. If it's all about the thrill without having to pay heed to others, why not race XC or DH? These are effectvely closed environments where you can go as fast as you like in the knowledge that you are very unlikely to hit a walker......unless of course you are more than a little unlucky....or clumsy...or both. 😀

I would caution to be careful what you wish for re permanently controlled environments. If you are the beneficial user group, that's great for you. Just don't be surprised when other better organised user groups decide that they want areas for themselves to our exclusion.

I recall in a previous thread how you weren't happy with walkers on the bike trails in Pollok Country Park. Whether you like it or not, walkers are entitled to go where they want in Pollok Country Park and to be brutally honest, have been on the scene a lot longer than us mountain bikers. I walk there and I ride there and would be loathe to prohibit access to the biggest user group just because a few bikers want to have thrills without personal responsibility and accountability for their actions.

If you **** someone on a mountain bike trail, the law isn't interested in your perceived moral authority or right to ride. Rather, it will be concerned whether you excercised your presumed duty of care to other trail users. While they may find that a walker on a designated signposted trail contributed to a collision and their subsequent injury, this won't necessarily eliminate your liability for injuries caused.

Cheers

Sanny

3) Expectation of exclusivity is explicitly written into the Scottish access rights legislation - do you reckon they've misunderstood the nature of the countryside?

However this has not been applied to mountainbike trails and it is not clear if it could be as it has not been tested in court.

I am not even sure if it would be a good thing to do - or someone could equally well build a footpath / footbridge and say it was built solely for walkers or horses.

'Walkers use dedicated MTB trails shock'
'Mountain bikers use footpaths shock'
Is there a difference? IF I was on a footpath, which of course I wouldn't be cos it's illegal, I'd expect to 'bump into' walkers. If I was walking on a MTB trail, which I wouldn't even though there's no legal issue over it (correct me if I'm wrong) I'd expect to 'be bumped into' by MTBers.
Selfish lot us aren't we?

TJ - I understand that. My point was about the fact that exclusivity is occasionally reserved in law to prevent conflict of use in some circumstances.

If you **** someone on a mountain bike trail, the law isn't interested in your perceived moral authority or right to ride. Rather, it will be concerned whether you excercised your presumed duty of care to other trail users. While they may find that a walker on a designated signposted trail contributed to a collision and their subsequent injury, this won't necessarily eliminate your liability for injuries caused.

Assuming that they catch you and you give them your correct details, I take it? I doubt the law would come into it tbh, as despite what the 'where there's blame there's a claim' brigade may say, an accident such as this would be viewed as a civil, not criminal offence. As far as I'm aware, you don't have to stop at the scene of a rambling / bike accident an exchange details like you do in a car...

IF I was on a footpath, which of course I wouldn't be cos it's illegal

FAIL

blimey zokes, Im cavalier, but even I wouldnt leave the scene of an accident 🙂

Sanny, my issue with Pollok was a lack of adequate signage. Following my discussions with the council, they erected signs to advise walkers of the dangers.

Someone ripped them down a few weeks ago.

But as Glen pointed out, and I agree, you can't forceably keep people off trails. But someone mentioned earlier that there's no signage on the Marin trail at the end of a descent meaning people walk up it unknowningly.

Now everyone can bump their gums about access rights for all, but I can tell you that if someone was seriously injured as a result of walking up a trail that they shouldn't have been on, and there were no signs warning them, they could have a field day with a compensation claim from the landowner or the body responsible for the trails.

Fair enough stoner.

blimey zokes, Im cavalier, but even I wouldnt leave the scene of an accident

And neither would I (contrary to my devil's advocate post). I'd certainly check they were OK, but would never give my name or address. Why would they need that information? If they failed to be reasonable about where they blunder, they'll probably fail to be reasonable after they'd been in an accident [b]that they caused[/b] on said trail. I don't see how anything would be gained from my perspective by providing them my details (unless they'd damaged something on my bike and were going to pay for it 😀 )

Yeah and from a PI perspective you'd want to make sure you killed them (probably cheaper) than permanently maimed them...
so ride as fast as possible 😈

I'm joking BTW - the "I'm having fun so get out of my way" mentality seems to be part of the further americanisation of our culture.

in order for that belief to be realised you need a crowd of enforcers

Not if it's somewhere that only mountain bikers want to use. Land management is an art, not a science, but if you do it carefully then you can minimise the risks to everyone.

Land management is an art, not a science

Well said. I think some of us are guilty of being a bit black and white on this issue. I do expect to be able to ride fast at a trail centre but that does not equate to reckless. That said I would be mighty cheesed off if I had to slam the anchors on because someone (even a MTBer) was munching their cheese butties in the middle of the singletrack.

There will always be people who ride bikes on footpaths and people who walk on dedicated MTB trails. It's something that everyone will just have to deal with. There will be accidents. There will be claims and counter claims, but at the end of the day it just needs a degree of common sense from both sides.

The marin is probably more prone to walker / biker interfaces as there is a lot of shared fireroad, etc, but it's not a real problem if youy keep your eyes peeled. Having said that, I wouldn't like to bump in to a walker whose taken a 'wrong turn' on the final descent!

Anyway, wonder where the CTC stand on this and whether the legal cover you get with membership would help if you ran over redsocks children?

I doubt the law would come into it tbh, as despite what the 'where there's blame there's a claim' brigade may say, an accident such as this would be viewed as a civil, not criminal offence.

Actually you would have definitely commited the tort of battery if you were riding without due care and attention, and may well be liable to an assault charge.

Contributory negligence would only be applicable if the victim did something unreasonable to contribute to their injury, not if they were behaving in a reasonable manner (walking up a path which they are legally entitled to be on). Similarly you would have a very difficult time persuading a judge that an unconscious or immobilised rider on the trail was contributory negligent if you plowed into them out of control.

still tortoise, you're allowed to be pissed off at people's stupidity, although often I think it's better to be friendly.