I've ended up on Pennine way bogs in Northumberland (see the pics earlier) bits of Kinder, parts of the lakes. If you want access to all places in the UK then please tell me how it's maintained. What happens when it's not. Even the bits where Parks have gone in and boarded routes etc. cost money, time and effort. Large amounts of the high and open bits of England are bogs, not suitable for bikes or horses. All I'm saying is be sensible.
The Peak district has cities with about 1.5 million people surrounding it, very different to the 400k in Edinburgh.
Pentland Hills RP - around 25,000 acres
Peak District - around 355,000 acres
Does it matter if the countryside gets a bit muddy? Does it matter if you get a bit muddy if you go for a walk/cycle in the countryside?
For a start, If you have more access, then the erosion is spread over a greater area, rather than concentrated in small areas whereby it becomes progressively worse
there is also a clear element of self selection - unridable trails don't get ridden, well constructed ones that are less prone to erosion get ridden more - even less of a problem with bikes as we don't go round puddles or obstructions as much as walkers do.
Large amounts of the high and open bits of England are bogs, not suitable for bikes or horses.
they are not suitable for [b]walkers[/b] wither, but that didn't stop the introduction of CROW, nor has it led to disaster - all your arguments were proffered as reasons why CROW wouldn't work - all have proven unfounded or manageable in practice.
Does it matter if the countryside gets a bit muddy?
Does it matter that somebody rips a big trench through land? Does it matter that this can lead to more erosion? Does it matter - well if all you do is pass through probably once a year probably not, if you have to try and deal with it then it might do.
Does it matter that somebody rips a big trench through land? Does it matter that this can lead to more erosion? Does it matter - well if all you do is pass through probably once a year probably not, if you have to try and deal with it then it might do.
So you think we should repeal CROW?
So you think we should repeal CROW?
I think that a brain should be used rather than the overly simplistic and lazy Yes/No version some people want. It's not as easy but it's a better solution than the current English FP/BW system.
You are allowed to walk on this:
[img] 
[/img]
You are NOT allowed to ride on this:
[img] .jpg)
[/img]
Wheres the logic?
I think that a brain should be used rather than the overly simplistic and lazy Yes/No version some people want. It's not as easy but it's a better solution than the current English FP/BW system.
Answer the question, Should we repeal CROW (which by your measure is a simplistic and lazy yes/no law)?
Do you have moles making mountains in your garden too?Does it matter that somebody rips a big trench through land?
[i]well if all you do is pass through probably once a year probably not, if you have to try and deal with it then it might do.[/i]
For twenty years riders have ridden footpaths in Calderdale, having the option of a wider network of trails has meant moorland trails haven't been destroyed because most people opt for rocky paths instead in winter.
You're repeatedly going on about theoretical damage to trails without being able to offer anything more than "what ifs', meanwhile you seem to ignore real world experience because it doesn't fit your belief.
[i]I think that a brain should be used rather than the overly simplistic and lazy Yes/No version some people want.[/i]
open access allows people to make that choice
Wheres the logic?
Exactly, the logic is screwed. Lets use some brain power to work out a better solution.
Does it matter that somebody rips a big trench through land?
Do you have moles making mountains in your garden too?
I'll rip a 2ft deep trench through your garden, fine isn't it.
if you can do it on your bike or walking I'll be impressed. I'll give you 100 goes and if is more than an inch deep you can have my bike.I'll rip a 2ft deep trench through your garden, fine isn't it
Come on Mike, shit or get off the pot - do you think we should repeal CROW?
Nobody is talking about gardens though are they?
we're not talking about Tasmania either but what the hell...
What is forgotten was that before the land was stolen from the common man, a lot more people used to live in those hills - at least in Scotland.
Their only means of transport was foot or possibly pony. The hill tracks would have been far more heavily used than they are now. The hills didn't all erode away into molehills.
What is forgotten was that before the land was stolen from the common man, a lot more people used to live in those hills - at least in Scotland.Their only means of transport was foot or possibly pony. The hill tracks would have been far more heavily used than they are now. The hills didn't all erode away into molehills.
i think the problem is many people dont think the countryside should ever change from how it is right now, regardless of how it got to what it currently looks like. So they are terrified of erosion or new paths being cut (or old one overgrown) and demand repair or sanitisation to return to its original state.
And even if the erosion did get so bad you needed to stop use then a few sign posts and a bit of rope explaining a diversion would stop 99% of people making it worse and giving it time to recover.
Maybe a simple survey to ask who loves riding through axle deep bogs would solve this? As has been pointed out, most people research rides first these days and avoid routes that aren't fun in winter. Surely it's more of an educational thing?
As for more local trails, a volunteer group could tackle lots of simple drainage problems using materials found on site, simple tools and some twin wall and this would benefit all user groups.
I do this kind of thing on the quiet anyways.
Mugboo - Member
Maybe a simple survey to ask who loves riding through axle deep bogs would solve this?...
Guilty 🙂
[url= https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2849/12913342745_31698ed1ae_b.jp g" target="_blank">https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2849/12913342745_31698ed1ae_b.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
wow, look at the damage your bike has caused, tTo that moorland, hat's shocking!
Proof if it were ever needed that bicycles in Britain cause even more erosion than walkers in Tasmania
Out of interest, how many people don't ride on footpaths regularly? I am lucky to live on the north west corner of the Peak District. Unlike the beautiful Hope Valley, bridleways round me aren't ten a penny. However, neither do we get the visitor numbers on the trails they get.
Good riders tend to go where good trails are round my patch. There is the occasional threat from a game keeper or farmer but these are the exception not the norm and if you respect them all tends to be good in the end. Realistically I can't see the trail traffic increasing a lot on my trails if we eventually get open access like Scotland. It will just become legitimate.
I ride one section of FP fairly regularly but it's usually at night or midweek. The section in question is either rough set cobbles or gritstone flags so there's little erosion caused. Most if not all of the other FPs in our area aren't worth riding really as they have lots of stiles to negotiate, some of which are hard enough to get through without a bike.
Realistically I can't see the trail traffic increasing a lot on my trails if we eventually get open access like Scotland. It will just become legitimate.
True dat!
@abeach, personally will ride FPs as long as I am 100% sure I ain't going to piss someone off - my criteria for judging this includes time of day, time of year, day of week, popularity of trail, chances of doing damage to trail, and probably a few more that I can't think of right now.
BUT... as a guide, I can't take people on FPs, my insurance wouldn't back me - so I have my hands tied which is pretty pants. And as a guidebook rider/magazine writer I can't put FPs in routes, which means I can't necessarily highlight the best places to ride in an area - again hands tied.
When I guide/work in Scotland, these worries go out of the window. So a change in these laws would make a massive difference to an awful lot of mtbers - especially those that were riding or planning to ride outside of their local area.
Do all the people worried about erosion also campaign against global warming/climate change as that wreaks havoc on the countryside as well, often a lot more havoc.
I'll bite, I think global warming and climate is a massive problem, I live in a country that is on a fine balance in terms of climate these days. Part of my objection stem from the bit where most people see the countryside as a self managing space where the reality is there are people working really hard to fix the shit.
Part of my objection stem from the bit where most people see the countryside as a self managing space where the reality is there are people working really hard to fix the shit.
That presumes you want/need it to stay exactly how it is now. Its right to use intervention to protect important features such as rare plants, bird habitats or historical features (such as stone walkways). But there is no need to go repairing muddy tracks unless there is a very good reason, such as critical access. If a track becomes near-impassible does that really matter? ok so it might be annoying to those who use it already but the countryside is not for their sole use, everyone has to have the option to use it, and how many would if word got out it was so horrible (you have to think long term too, not just short term).
I think part of the worry is existing user scared its going to be 'spoiled' for them, i have to admit to being one of them but i can see the overall benefit outweighs the negatives.
But there is no need to go repairing muddy tracks unless there is a very good reason, such as critical access. If a track becomes near-impassible does that really matter?
Bored of this really but do you make your living from the land, does your income relate to being able to use such things, does the damage impact stuff?
It's somebody's workplace.
Your saying everyone is suddenly going to go walking through the middle of fields rolling around in crops or chasing sheep? All the bridleways near me that are not designated cycle ways are through fields that are already churned to bits by tractors and animals, and its summer! Walkers and cyclists cant do that much damage.
I don't think with open access more people will use the tracks, just that useage that there is willl be less concentrated.
I don't think
Sorry but not something I take as evidence...
I know my opinion differs from the STW accepted but it's based on bad access and the current mismatch of access laws I've experienced and the fact that the general populous are idiots - so many I have to wash my bike after riding through hub deep mud posts over winter. I might be wrong but just looking for a thinking rather than blanket approach.
Sorry, my point was damage done by existing use on tracks only is already outweighed by use of the land by the owner (in my experience). You wont suddenly get more people going off track than already use track with right to roam
As for 'roaming' i dont think it will be as extensive as some think. Most of the UK is managed in some way, with walls, fences and hedges, where are people going to roam to-from?! In the more remote areas i can see more roaming, but by definition you are further from population and so use will be limited.
@mike . ditto back at, do you ahve any evidance that open access has reduced in a net increase in the people using the trails? I a mechanisum where by trail users would be less concetrated but not a ny real net increase.
it's not much concern if the land is getting eroded in an area where the land is work, the working of the land will be doing much more damage.
Witness all the flooding caused by areas which used to have trees but farming incentives (EU) deemed it better to cut them all down to have more farmland.
And the erosion of trails in areas like the Surrey Hills, it doesn't matter much once they decide to log that area, turning it into a wasteland.
The main concern is in areas where the land isn't worked and the annual cycle won't restore the damage, which is probably places like the lake district.
On the bridleways I used to ride you could see the annual cycle of them getting mashed up badly over winter, but then restored as the cyclists (for one) used to roll them flat again in the spring.
But locally they have to build the bridleways back up as the horses chew them up so badly - but there are a limited number of bridleways which doesn't help.
mikewsmith - Member
...I know my opinion differs from the STW accepted but it's based on bad access and the current mismatch of access laws I've experienced and the fact that the general populous are idiots...
The evidence of countries that have open access is that there is no problem.
Countries that have restricted access then have all the trail use concentrated on a few trails, and they appear to have problems from overuse. People prefer quieter trails, with open access they'd use them.
As for idiots, presumably you're talking about Oz? 🙂
The country where most of the land damage is down to past govt policies and farming practices. When I lived there I never saw erosion due to walkers or cyclists. Effing horses, motorbikes, and 4wds though do horrendous damage.
Get filling in people. Option D. Start again, access for all 😉
the fact that the general populous are idiots
I think you're right there, but equally I think most people likely to take advantage of Open Access are also likely to be of reasonable intelligence and able to judge for themselves.
The real idiots don't even know there are access restrictions or indeed care.
My opinion is that dilution will help in the long term, and tracks will find their users naturally.
It's amazing to me that for years, open access for walkers was opposed on the basis that it would lead to devastation in the countryside. Years of evidence has shown that to be complete bollocks, and yet the same old tired arguments get trotted out to oppose access to a much much smaller number of cyclists.
thecaptain - Member
It's amazing to me that for years, open access for walkers was opposed on the basis that it would lead to devastation in the countryside. Years of evidence has shown that to be complete bollocks, and yet the same old tired arguments get trotted out to oppose access to a much much smaller number of cyclists.
well put
mtbguiding - Member
@abeach, personally will ride FPs as long as I am 100% sure I ain't going to piss someone off - my criteria for judging this includes time of day, time of year, day of week, popularity of trail, chances of doing damage to trail, and probably a few more that I can't think of right now.BUT... as a guide, I can't take people on FPs, my insurance wouldn't back me - so I have my hands tied which is pretty pants. And as a guidebook rider/magazine writer I can't put FPs in routes, which means I can't necessarily highlight the best places to ride in an area - again hands tied.
Fair point, hadn't thought about that. I do think they should "do a scotland". Lots of high level footpaths are gate/style free and cracking for riding on. Would be great to have them in guides etc
Interesting debate. Personally, I would be in favour of our southern cousins adopting a similar approach as up here in Jockland. Increasing access should spread the load across the country as opposed to concentrating it on the existing network of bridleways. Is erosion really that big a concern? If you work the land, are you really going to notice the difference between an inch of mud and two on a track that you use regularly? Is erosion caused by walkers any less offensive than that caused by horses and cyclists. For the most part, access legislation in Scotland works well in my humble opinion.
Land owners are not the sole guardians of the countryside. Scottish history over the last couple of hundred years shows how concentrating ownership in the hands of the few can lead to a monoculture environment. The land is a worked environment but that doesn't mean the owners should have primacy. It is everyone's responsibility to look after and improve the land for future generations. However, maintaining paths to minimise erosion should be well down the list of priorities. Reducing the application of pesticides, developing alternative energy sources, repopulating forests etc are of far greater importance.
I wonder if there is a STW equivalent forum for land owners? 😀
Sanny for PM
As I understood it there's a mountain outside Edinburgh. Open access, well, opened it up. Trails got a bit damaged from over use. Cycling community banded together to self regulate itself. Trails healed. Issue went away.
One of the other reasons cited in, for example, Wales, is that it's smaller than Scotland. True. But the open spaces are pretty similar. And it's those that this is all about.
I've ridden plenty of bridleways in Mid-Wales that clearly haven't seen use in donkeys years. Making MORE trails available is only going to spread the number of users out further and lessen the general impact.
I wrote this a couple of years back, which for me sums it up. There's no real reason to exclude bikes from so much of the countryside, but there are very good reasons to increase the opportunities for physical exercise. 1 in 5 people in the UK have access to a mountain bike, so why not give them more places to ride it?
http://bristoltrails.tumblr.com/post/57865780053/better-safe-than-sorry
(PS Good to see the predictable "OK then I'll come and do skids in your garden" argument wheeled out yet again.)