Forum menu
To quote Euro:
p.s. The old trail looked shit anyway
Then within four posts:
I'll admit that the trail was visually interesting
Strange man. Or just possibly trolling?
Safe to ignore on all counts.
Strange man. Or just possibly trolling?Safe to ignore on all counts.
Probably never riden a bike outside a trail centre / bike park
Iain1775, we've only had trail centres here for the last couple of years and that's probably why my experience seems so different to the majority of STW. We've cut/built our own trails in Ireland for decades and even though we now have several trail centres, we still prefer to build and ride our own stuff. If you think that rocky walking path makes for a good trail, you wouldn't last 2 minutes in the wild over here 😀
Dannyh, visually interesting and interesting to ride are two different things. I'll admit i'm a strange man round these parts, and you know what? I'm kinda glad. You all seem happy to fire off Points of View style letters but how many of you are prepared to lift a spade and barrow and build something? Call me a troll if that makes you feel better, but actions speak louder than words.
Mr Euro, go back under your bridge. If you want an argument I'm sure there are plenty threads on here where people will be only too happy to oblige but this isn't the place.
Back OT, assuming the works are not suspended (which would seem likely), what would be the legal implications of a load of people going up there with spades and wheelbarrows and making a symbolic gesture of removing some of the rubble? In terms of a protest I think it could be quite effective, but I doubt anyone wants to get into trouble over it.
Let's not bicker about this. DCC will happily wait us out if they can. In fighting will just make their job easier. Those who know the trail love it as it is. For some people it's a challenge getting down, for some the challenge is getting up. Some make it, some don't. However, the fact remains, of all those who ride it, no one wants it turned into something you can find in a suburban park.
Let's stay united against the common enemy that is DCC.
@Euro, we generally can't go round building our own trails here as we don't have the land nor the right to do so. The Peak is a National Park so we certainly can't do it there. I am one who enjoys riding natural trails and given a choice would always ride that rather than a man made trail. I suppose this comes partly from the fact that I've been hiking for 35 years and riding MTB for 10, I took up MTB so I could further enjoy the outdoors and cover more ground than walking.
I was wondering if we should protest near county hall in matlock. Filling in cracks in roads and pavements with jelly and squirty cream.
DCC couldn't object as their M.O. seems to be unnecessary repairs with inappropriate materials without warning or consultation.
Clocking off time on a Friday might get their attention.
Ok folks, im not trolling with this i promise. Many issues aside i think i can kind of see where they are coming from. Some of those step downs look lots of fun but you wouldnt let a beginner roll them? so it needs fixing as its obviously causing the track to widen as people walk around them. the only other option would be to put another track in i guess and i cant see them doing that.
its not a trail centre is it..
Mr Euro, go back under your bridge
+1
There's a certain ammount of irony in an Irish poster commenting on natural trails.
Ok folks, im not trolling with this i promise. Many issues aside i think i can kind of see where they are coming from. Some of those step downs look lots of fun but you wouldnt let a beginner roll them? so it needs fixing as its obviously causing the track to widen as people walk around them. the only other option would be to put another track in i guess and i cant see them doing that.its not a trail centre is it..
I don't think there is any legal requirment to make a bridelway passable for bikes, beginner, mountainbiker, experienced gnarr shredder or otherwise. They have to be passable for horses and walkers, but bikes are allowed to use them, we don't have the same right to expect them to be maintained.
As others have said, horses and their riders hate the looser sandy surface as it shifts under them, they much prefer a solid but uneven surface that keeps the horse thinking.
And eveyone hate's f****** water bars, which are far harder to ride than steps anyway.
Rather than flatten it, why not use the £70k to reinforce and flat to ribbon on top of the bank.
Just because not everyone can ride it yet, doesn't mean it should be flattened to the point where everyone can.
If you can't ride the bigger ones, walk them until you're happy enough on the smaller one to then give them a go.
How do you think those who can ride them learned to do so?
He's sort of right, it's not the most exciting trail but it is one of the last untouched bits on a generally excellent route and that makes the smoothing of it more pertinent than its original quality.
Andybrad- They have, ironically, got two parallel trails leading up to it along Rushup Edge. A rough, rocky one for walkers and a smooth boggy one with no technical bits for cyclists and horses. I see no reason why they couldn't have put in a proper gravel track on the edges where an alternative line has already developed.
Edit-
why not use the £70k to reinforce and flat to ribbon on top of the bank.
Good idea!
Would have been a better idea had it not been for fat fingers and auto correct, but you get the idea. 😆
dazh - Member
what would be the legal implications of a load of people going up there with spades and wheelbarrows and making a symbolic gesture of removing some of the rubble? In terms of a protest I think it could be quite effective, but I doubt anyone wants to get into trouble over it.
Probably death 😆 Do and see, what have you got to lose?
@Euro, we generally can't go round building our own trails here as we don't have the land nor the right to do so.
Neither do we, but if we didn't, we would have had nowhere to ride up until a couple of years ago. Every once in a while trails like this are sanitised to make them suitable for walkers so we just cut a new one. No big deal really.
There's a certain ammount of irony in an Irish poster commenting on natural trails.
Us Irish are a bit thick so you'll need to explain those big words and their meaning.
I'm not trolling or looking for an argument, just suggesting an alternative that has worked for us here and in other parts of the world.
so it needs fixing as its obviously causing the track to widen as people walk around them. the only other option would be to put another track in i guess and i cant see them doing that.
In my experience of that section, the path on the bank has been created by walkers trying to give people descending more room to pick their line and I expect because walkers don't want to be in a sunken path when a group of bikes arrives from the other direction.
Smoothing the main track out means bikes arriving even faster though, so I fully expect just as many walkers to keep taking the alternate path.
Us Irish are a bit thick so you'll need to explain those big words and their meaning.
The reason you have to dig cheeky trails is the difference in access laws between the UK and Ireland (and including N.Ireland in that as the whole cerfuffle dates back to when the two shared the same legal system). In Ireland you don't have access to many tracks like this because with the exception of 'mass roads' there was a presumption in favour of the landowners right to his private property over any public rights of way. Thus any rights of way in Ireland were the result of landowners declaring them as such, which as a generalisation didn't happen.
We dig trails too, we also have trail centers and natural trails. If you ride one type exclusively you're missing out.
In relation to digging up the path? That'd definately be criminal damage. So, a lot f money paying damages, your freedom if they opt to jail you, and probably you job as a result.[awaits a [s]sound[/s][i]keyboard[/i]bite form someone about DCC's actions being the criminal etc].Do and see, what have you got to lose?
I'm not trolling or looking for an argument, just suggesting an alternative that has worked for us here and in other parts of the world.
Euro, there are 4.5 million people in the whole of Ireland. There are over 16 million people living within an hour of the Peak District National Park. That's nearly four times as many as live in your whole country, in a much smaller area. It's possible because of this that things might be a bit different over here. Things that work for you in your part of the world might not work for us. And just setting off digging trails across the hills wherever we fancy definitely won't.
Smoothing the main track out means bikes arriving even faster though, so I fully expect just as many walkers to keep taking the alternate path.
The 'alternate' path is a Public Footpath, not just a cheeky walk-around.
Ok folks, im not trolling with this i promise. Many issues aside i think i can kind of see where they are coming from. Some of those step downs look lots of fun but you wouldnt let a beginner roll them? so it needs fixing as its obviously causing the track to widen as people walk around them. the only other option would be to put another track in i guess and i cant see them doing that.its not a trail centre is it..
Exactly, it's not a trail centre! Probably the two biggest user groups, walkers followed by mtbers, don't really care for flat boring trails in the countryside. Sure, there will be people with access difficulties who require easier paths, but they're very much a minority - not that they shouldn't be catered for, but there are plenty of other paths in the area that meet those specific requirements...
The Radio Sheffield article has just started. [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/radiosheffield ]here[/url]
Wow - some fascinating information here: [url= http://www.peakdistrict.gov.uk/looking-after/vehicles/priorityroutes ]PD Priority Routes[/url] (apologies if already posted)
Just scroll down to Chapel Gate, and check out
[url= http://www.peakdistrict.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/426626/AP1403-Chapel-Gate.pdf ]Action Plan[/url]
[url= http://www.peakdistrict.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/227862/MP0912-Chapel-Gate.pdf ]Management Plan[/url]
[url= http://www.peakdistrict.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/295833/MR1210-ChapelGate.pdf ]Monitoring Report[/url]
[url= http://www.peakdistrict.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/295837/MR1210-ChapelGate-App.pdf ]Appendix[/url]
Surveys, photos of erosion, geological info, incident reports, and more.
As pointed out above, Chapel Gate is actually the full track, including Rushup Edge climb/descent, as well as the +++++ towards Edale. If only we'd known earlier 🙄
I might be over simplifying things here, as I have only had a quick skim. However, in the monitoring report linked above, it states that the majority of users of the route are cyclists - in which case why not consult with them as to how they would like it maintained?
Also it also stated that over 75% of the folks they interviewed couldn't think of anything that would have improved their visit. With that in mind, why carry out work which drastically changes the experience of those who visit? Don't spend tens of thousands of pounds on fixing something that isn't broken?
All seems a bit daft to me. Admittedly they were doing the survey to identify whether the temporary ban on motor vehicles should continue, but why employ someone to do a survey and then ignore the data it provides when making decisions which will have such a drastic effect in the future?
Just shows that, despite the email responses to the contrary, little or no logic or thought goes into the planning of this sort of 'repair' work and they just crack on regardless with what they think is right.
As someone said earlier in the thread, just a typical example of the Nanny state and folk deciding what is best for us 🙁
The 'alternate' path is a Public Footpath, not just a cheeky walk-around.
Aye, but the point made by someone else was that the erosion of the main track was causing people to divert onto the bank, I don't agree and believe that making the main track smooth and fast will cause more people to use and erode the bank.
imo that section of track has not changed at all in the 16 years I've been walking it and the 14 years I've been mtbing on it. Nor I think has the top top bit.
As a newbie who first rode it in the late 1990's early 2000's on a shonky hard tail with rubbish brakes and virtually no skill, I just walked the tricky bits (as mentioned above by Vickypea).Some of those step downs look lots of fun but you wouldnt let a beginner roll them?
As mention above by onzdog - by riding it many times with better skills and a better bike I finally cleaned it and this is of course how we start to ride tricky stuff.
I still think that DCC don't give a toss and won't care what a bunch of mtbers (most of whom take part in other activities in the NP, such as climbing, walking and horse riding) think.
If they carry on regardless then something needs to change. What, I don't know. But the time and effort that has been spent trying to communicate with DCC, explain our concerns and get them to do something different could end up being a complete waste of time if they choose to ignore us.
They need to be shown that they can't simply do what they want when so many people oppose it.
Stop saying the didn't consult! They did, and here are the results 🙄
[b]Table J6 – Factors that would have made the visit more enjoyable[/b]
37 Different weather (warmer, sunnier, less wind, ice, snow, rain)
9 No Motor vehicles
8 Better ground condition (less muddy/more grass/less rocks)
7 Better signage
4 Better car parking
4 More trails / bridleways
4 Fewer bikes
3 Fewer people
3 Better gates
3 Rougher route
3 Better erosion control
3 Fewer gates
3 Vehicles allowed
2 Fewer animals on route
2 Pub / tea kiosk
2 Left route alone
1 No walkers
1 Fewer drainage gullies
1 Fill in troughs
1 Dogs on leads
1 More access points for dogs
1 More wildlife
1 Natural Rock
1 Access for people with disabilities
1 Campsite bit poor
1 Toilet at Mam Nick
1 Chosen different route
1 People sticking to the paths
1 Traffic
1 Wish I had chosen a different route
And more:
[b]Table J7 – Factors that made the visit less enjoyable[/b]
15 4x4s / Motorcycles
7 Repairs / Improvements to route
7 Bikes on the route
6 Parking / Parking charges
5 Roughness of route / Ruts
5 Drainage gullies
5 Weather
3 The TRO
3 Litter / Rubbish
3 Gates
3 Large groups of walkers / too many people
2 Getting lost / track obstruction
1 Accident on ride
1 High Stiles
1 Scrap cars
1 Spooked horses on route
1 Aggressive farmer
1 Poor campsite
1 Toilets at Edale
1 Puncture
1 Mud
Well, that's good.
7 Repairs / Improvements to route
5 Roughness of route / Ruts
40% more people think that the route improvements are a problem than think thr roughness of the route is a problem.
^ That poll does not consider anyway near enough people to remove chance. What is the demography of the people asked?
Is there any evidence that the general public, or the users of the bridleway, are pro these 'repair' works?
Has any environmental monitoring been carried out quantify the footpath/bridleway erosion?
Good to hear this got some focus on radio Sheffield this morning with simon barnes
I'm not deliberatly trying to derail this thread but...
Stop saying the didn't consult! They did, and here are the results
What you have there is a survey. Which [i]just[/i] an exchange of information.
To consult, you really [i]need[/i] to discuss (as per the dictionary definition).
Have discussions with (someone), typically before undertaking a course of action:
Where is the actual discussion on the contents of that survey, and who were actually involved, as that would have been the actual consultation.
Well, my foi request should be answered by the 23rd November. Anyone else had their first response yet?
To answer [b]Edward[/b] and [b]Dan[/b] and [b]Norbert[/b] (edit), those tables are just a small part of the overall consultation process. There was detailed discussion with various groups, such as the Local Access Forum and (presumably) the RoW Forum. This was an attempt to get the views of members of the public outside of these formal groups. If you actually read the documents linked here and elsewhere, you might find answers to your questions.
So mountain-bikers in the Peak District, and elsewhere, might like to think about how they are going to engage in this process in the future. Rather than "shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted", so to speak.
The lads (and lasses) who have set up [b]PDMTB[/b] are doing exactly that, and all credit to them. But what are [b]YOU[/b] all doing to support them? (Or in your own local area, if elsewhere.)
(That's not to say I agree with DCC's "vandalism". Something has clearly gone badly wrong somewhere along the line.)
Exactly my point dan1980
They went to the trouble of carrying out a survey of folks using the trail.
This demonstrated that a large chunk of those people were in fact cyclists and that the vast majority of the people they interviewed were happy with their visit.
So instead of talking to this group about the repairs, (or I'd wager, looking at the results of it at all) they just went ahead anyway and decided they'd flatten the whole thing. They then justified this as having to "keep everybody who uses the National Park happy"
There's no logic to it ...
PS.. I'm fully supportive of what PDMTB are trying to do, as I think are most on here?
So mountain-bikers in the Peak District, and elsewhere, might like to think about how they are going to engage in this process in the future. Rather than "shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted", so to speak.The lads (and lasses) who have set up PDMTB are doing exactly that, and all credit to them. But what are YOU all doing to support them? (Or in your own local area, if elsewhere.)
If you speak to the PDMTB guys, you'l find that not only do they enjoy wide support from mountain bikers in the area, but they've also tried to engage with DCC with very limited success.
What would you suggest that WE should be doing to support them?
Of course we're all [i]supportive[/i] of PDMTB.
But what are people actually prepared to [b]do[/b]? Write a letter? Pick up a phone? Attend a council meeting? Or apply to join their local LAF?
It's not enough to merely think "supportive thoughts".
Esme, for those of us who haven't kept abreast of all this who should we contact?
I've made a foi request which I'll share once it arrives. I've added to the dcc Facebook page daily. I need to get some emails off tonight.
I'm also wondering how long dcc have to ignore you before you can justify a call to the local government ombudsmen.
Hopefully someone from PDMTB will be along shortly to answer the questions about how to help. But, if you're on FB, a good start would be to join the PDMTB group. And if you live locally, maybe think about attending any meetings, protests, etc which they need support for.
But more generally, it's useful to wise up on your own Local Access Forum, Rights of Way Forum, and so on.
The problem with LAFs, as I found when my local one was looking for cycling representation, is that the meetings tend to be during the day, in the week. This came through my local CTC branch (I'm a member).
Even evenings in the week would be a stretch as I have a young family, so by the time I've got home, put kids to bed and had something to eat, it's easily 8pm, so who wants to start a meeting at 8:30/9pm?
We are a disorganised bunch, but given the systems in place only really communicate through official channels, I'd suspect that the current system discriminated against a significant, disparate user group that no attempt has been made to communicate with. So, appeal to the European court of human rights about discriminatory practice, or get involved...
Though it has to be said, a press release to STW would have been more effective than anything else they've done as "consultation".
At last your begining to understand.... Go back and read posts on P15 and 16 about engaging with the LAF... It's simple really... Find some past LAF minutes and they were extremely positive of the value of mtb and what their needs are in their response to the PDNP cycle strategy
Keiths post exemplifies the general problem.... It is quite laughable of the opinion we seem to have of ourselves here how everyone should come to us....
Il say it again...there are established processes through which the local authority consults.... Other user groups seem capable of engaging with this.... Why do we think we deserve specific treatment??
This sorry tale has convinced me that some kind of organised body is required to represent us all, before it is too late.
So I'd say we need to register with PDMTB and get some kind get ourselves organised and co-ordinated so that we have a voice? Nobody is going to listen to individuals doing their own thing are they?
[url= http://www.peakdistrictmtb.org/ ]Peak District MTB[/url]
They are a nice bunch. I'd not heard anything about meetings since the first one I went to- are they still going on? I've not seen any mention on the facebook page. I was keen to get involved.
Well I've just linked this thread to both the MTB and Campaigning sections of the CTC forum, and emailed it to their campaigns department. Hopefully they can offer support and with it some national level clout to PDMTB.
I joined CTC several years ago as they were an advocacy group covering all cycling (Leisure, commute, utility, MTB) leaving BC to cover the racing aspect. It's a little disappointing that CTC haven't been all over this frankly.