Forum menu
The upper illegal track has been there for the 16 years or so I've been enjoying the outdoors in that area. As mentioned before, the sunken track has barely changed if at all in those 16 years.
I too will start to use the illegal higher track if these works continue and the track is flattened.
@Roger, that's my point. I'd wager that disabled access groups are probably realistic enough to see that there's no benefit to rushup edge being levelled in their name. If they came on side with us it would be a massive coup and blow one of dcc's main arguments clean out of the water.
Can we not use the legal / ilegal argument in the context of the side path. The landowner may have taken issue with DCC but it could just as easy be another DCC red herring.
One of the others is the diversity argument - last time I looked equal ops covered much more than physical ability.
Some reading from IPROW on rights of way widths:
http://www.iprow.co.uk/gpg/index.php/Widths
Survey done.
As a member of one of the local MR teams, whilst privately individual members might be 'up in arms'about this trail destruction, unless it impacts upon teams ability to operate, then individual teams, and our regional body will be unlikely to pass comment. If trail works stopped a team deploying a land rover up the track then yes they would complain. Teams generally do not criticise anybody requiring our services publicly; we all started off in the outdoors with minimal kit, and skills. Some off us take massive risks when we go out to play too. So whether trail 'improvements' (surely an oxymoron) increase speed and accidents,who knows? (Obviously there is a clearly established correlation between speed/mechanism of injury and severity of injury.) That correlation, not withstanding, regional statistics would have to be gathered before and after, and even then it would be very tricky to directly state how much the state of the trail played a part in the incident.
13 years of MR serice I can think of less than a handful of bike related incidents on this bit of trail.
[quote=radar a dit]Obviously there is a clearly established correlation between speed/mechanism of injury and severity of injury.
this is the very reason for the development of our network of trail centres. Inappropriate speed on poorly surfaced forest trails around CYB lead to several injuries as people quite simply lost control and crashed when they were unable to brake safely. This lead to the development of tighter, twister trails with a less even surface where the speed of riders could be controlled and limited while still provoding a challenge. I realise that the council does not want to create a trail centre (and nor should they) but in creating a smooth, wide track they are leaving themselves wide open to claims of negligence should (god forbid) any serious injuries occur
actually it may be a little late for that, wasn't there a biker helicoptered off the (newly-resurfaced) Stanage Causeway recently after he hit a new waterbar? Hope he's ok
Survey issues: I am going to contact the survey monkey admin about this. I know why the problem has happened but don't want to fix it if I run the risk of upsetting the survey and it doesn't change the overall results . Over 600 replies so far.
Rushup Edge – Update
Peak District MTB (PDMTB) and Ride Sheffield (RS) members have been instrumental in persuading Derbyshire County Council that they must listen to the mountain bike community. On Friday, we were contacted by DCC offering a meeting on December 2nd along with the the BMC, Friends of the Peak District/CPRE and Keeper of the Peak, co-signatories of last week's Open Letter. Anxious that the meeting should be conducted in the correct spirit, PDMTB and RS pressed DCC that no work should recommence on Rushup Edge until after the meeting. DCC have demonstrated admirable good faith by agreeing to a cessation of works until December 8th at the earliest.
This excellent result would not have been possible without the hard work of mountain bikers right across the Peak District, Sheffield and beyond. The letters, emails, tweets and phone calls have borne fruit and it is testament to the power of our arguments that we haven't been ignored.
Email confirmation of the cessation and details of the closure were received at PDMTB HQ today (12 Nov 2014)
Further to our telephone conversation this is a quick note to confirm that works are suspended until 9th December 2014 on the route. The route is currently closed by emergency order for 3 weeks after which a temporary closure will be implemented for a period of up to 3 months to allow works to be completed. If you need any further information please get in contact.
Regards,
Richard Bonner, Assistant Head of Countryside Service, Economy, Transport and Environment Department, Derbyshire County Council
Of course, this isn't the end of the affair. We have to see Rushup Edge reinstated to its former glory and secure genuine consultation in the future, nothing less. Rest assured, PDMTB, RS, the BMC, Friends of the Peak District/CPRE and Keeper of the Peak will continue to fight your corner.
To help us do that, please complete the survey - http://www.peakdistrictmtb.org/index.php/50-survey-rushup-edge-consultation
Thanks
Well done to all who were involved directly or indirectly.
Fingers crossed that this is the start of change. Let's also not get too cynical about this meeting and keep our optimistic heads on.
Survey done keep up the good work
Great news. Just goes to show what reasoned argument and a social media shitstorm can do!
Aye, congrats all round.
Now for the hard part. 😆
is it just me.. but is there not an issue here.. great the work has stopped so the route is preserved as is for the immediate future.. however the route is now closed until dec 9th at the earliest.
these folks are slippy customers be careful what you wish for the trail is now closed and will be for an undefined period
Yes - that's as may be so. But they can't close it indefinitely and looking at the longer term the campaign has got mountain bikers a seat at a table they simply didn't have before.
If DCC are good to their word they'll listen to the group. If they aren't, there will be no change from their original plan.
I'm being optimistic. If a temporary closure on Rushup means that DCC consult properly with mountain bikers (and more groups) and we end up with high quality maintenance and repair like we see on the roych that can only be a good thing
I know a few people, including me, are questioning the validity of the notice, particularly its emergency nature.
What I did find interesting when asking about the notice is how the highways section were very keen to distance themselves from this order and explained how it was very much a rights of way issue. The reason I find that interesting is that in the original copy and paste responses from the rights of way section, they came across as being keen to include their works and intentions within the wider highways remit.
In terms of the order being currently in force, to use the official BOAT would be a contravention of the order and could possibly be seen as criminal although I've no idea what the penalty would be.
DCC were keen to point out that the track up on the bank was not part of the right of way. Therefore, it connot be covered by this order and to use it would remain a civil issue with the land owner.
However, as there seems to be some movement in a positive direction, I'm sure it would be in everyone's interests to play nicely for the time being.
Presumably the contractors are now charging for delays
Which hopefully might eat up some of the budget for this and future byway maintenance works
Direct Labour I believe so although they will charge the rights of way department, it's not real money.
Yep, it was DCC guys up there when I met them 24 pages ago!
@Onzadog - if we can play nice for a bit that would be appreciated, it's not perfect but Pook has lent me his spare rose tinted spectacles for a couple of weeks so let's see what happens at the meeting.
Well done to all concerned so far. This shows the benefits of having an organised and vocal group.
I guess that in the past council employees thought that the easiest option was to push works through and deal with the fallout later as it'll only be minor.
What they now must realise is that the easiest option is to consult and work with the various user groups as the fallout is potentially huge.
Still a long way to go, but this is promising. Perhaps something good is going to come from all of this?
its all very well and good they have postponed it, and going forward its great (hopefully) for future things like this to NOT happen
but the damage is done, how on earth can they reinstate it to what it was before?
it was natural and been like that for ages, even if they put slabs in its not going to be anything like it was before
they've ruined it, and the only good thing about all the uproar is hopefully the future of other paths will be considered before demolishing naturally beautiful pieces of the peak district
🙁
still makes me mad
While unlikely, it's not impossible for them to take the aggregate away and leave it as it was.
Well done everyone, keep up the great work. I'm far from local but have ridden in the area a few times and, I've done the questionnaire and have been following.
Fingers crossed you can get them to back track and get it back to what it was. Not sure if anyone else has suggested it but perhaps the offer of a working part to help clean up their mess to help save them some money would help. Although I'm hundreds of miles away I'd be tempted to lend a hand if I could make it.
Good call, I'd be up for a working party and know a few others who would as well.
I doubt they would go for something like that
Health and safety innit
So, trail impact on enjoyment? On Sunday we rode from Edale up Chapel Gate. Very sad to be able to climb on a previously iconic descent. Friendly walkers cheering us on (2,4,6,8 who do we appreciate? at which point I wobbled and started walking....). Then down Rushup Edge - still fun on the bits they haven't touched, quite hard to maintain enough speed on the babyhead rocks that are infilling the steps. Met lots of grumpy mountain bikers and no walkers. Down Roych Clough - seems sensible trail improvements there, well done! Up to Mount Famine, and then, cheekily, across the unclassified trail to the top of Jacob's Ladder, skipping the dull descent and climb into and out of Hayfield. Sue me now. First 1km is a bog fest, passed one sullen walker and one fell runner. The becomes lovely slabs. Met a friendly party of walkers who gave way to me before I had a chance to give way to them. Lovely final bit down to the top of Jacob's Ladder - though there's a corner that could do with a better berm if you're reading this National Trust! Lovely descent down Jacob's Ladder, trying to greet walkers cheerily even though I was concentrating on the trail. Back to the car, still a nice loop though surprised it was only 15km!
Very worrying letter in today's sheffield telegraph from a British horse society access officer on behalf of hallam riders group
Congratulates DCC for restoring the paths on Stanage causeway and rushup edge. Says that the routes had been badly degraded due to the upsurge in mountain biking. Makes some other, valid points about respect and access for all, but utter rubbish on the degradation point.
This is where we're going to have to be shit hot arguing the dual purpose tracks (where possible) case to DCC. It's perfectly feasible to have a reasonably clean path for horses and more natural stuff for walker and mtber.
DCC will argue cost - which will be a straw man argument - Rushup Edge could have been done cheaper by halving the amount of shit thrown in it even including the added cost of employing a landscape advisor.
chris the tall - already been challenged.
[url= http://www.sheffieldtelegraph.co.uk/news/letters/letters-november-13-1-6951378 ]Letter[/url] from BHS Access Officer
I like this bit:
[i]Whilst some of the 2,100km of footpaths would be suitable as upgraded bridleways . . .[/i]
If Peak Horsepower want engaging and challenging trails, as I believe they do, this would be an idea time for them to add their voice despite any previous "issues".
[url= http://www.bhs.org.uk/bhs-in-your-area/yorkshire/south-yorkshire/south-yorkshire-committee ]assistant access officer it would seem.[/url]
Might be worth checking this isn't the same situation as CTC Simon.
Congrats to all for getting publicity about this.
But DCC have not stopped.
They have just paused in light of the publicity. They will press ahead with this (and other schemes) once the heat of publicity has faded.
And they will use every trick they can to do what they intended in the first place. Don't be too surprised by the British Horse Society letter congratulating DCC. I am sure that other voices will come out of the woodwork supporting DCC - and I wouldn't be surprised if some of them won't be sent at the request of DCC. Its a strategy they have used before - getting other people to say you are doing good work is far more convincing than claiming it yourself.
They will also look for any argument to support what they intend to do.
We've already heard the spurious 'legal duty to maintain' argument. But they have lots of legal duties and they don't manage to meet them all. Whenever I hear this argument I say 'Pot holes'. Yes they have a legal duty to maintain and fill in pot holes in roads. But they don't do them all - using the argument that they don't have enough money! There are many other examples.
Access for disabled people is another common argument they use - in this case to support the decision to spend tens of thousands of pounds on this daft scheme. But at the same time they have just published proposals to cut millions of pounds from the Community Transport budget. Who will be most affected? Disabled peopl; many of whom will have their access to anywhere severely restricted. I think most disabled people in Derbyshire would prefer council tax to be spent on those schemes rather than dubious countryside 'improvements'.
But the most important issue is what other similar 'improvements' have they already programmed? And what is the total budget that they have set aside this year and following years for similar schemes?
Under the freedom of information legislation we have a right to ask and they have a duty to tell us. They don't plan these schemes from week to week but years ahead.
Whoever meets with the council should demand that they tell us - so that we can let a wider public know. But they will be reluctant to tell us and may try to avoid doing so.
Remember too that this is the council who removed the 'historic' Dovedale Stepping Stones and replaced them with concrete blocks - all for access and health and safety reasons. And they were persistent in justifying the unjustifiable.
Keep up the good work. It will be a long haul.
But the most important issue is what other similar 'improvements' have they already programmed? And what is the total budget that they have set aside this year and following years for similar schemes?
The following link details the Environmental Services Department plan for 2014/2015. Individual schemes are listed in the appendix.
[url= http://www.derbyshire.gov.uk/images/ETE%20Service%20Plan_tcm44-246953.pdf ]DCC Service Plan[/url]
In terms of other planned works on bridleways page A-32 of the appendix reveals scheme number 03 01 05
Derwent Bridleway 5 Ladybower Reservoir to Cutthroat Bridge (Whinstone Lee Tor)
Surface improvements and drainage to improve accessibility and to support sustainable tourism and leisure, improve health & well-being and increase
resilience to climate change. Supports moorland restoration project.
Some routes, including Long Causeway and Rushup Edge, have badly degraded, exacerbated by the recent upsurge in mountain bikes.
The above is from the BHS letter. This is total horse carp. Any degradation would have been mainly by 4x4s and they have already been banned. There are plenty of easy trails for horse riders, rushup presents more of a challenge for both horse and rider. The peak district currently offers a variety of challenges for walker, horse riders and mountain bikers, flattening trails affects everyone's enjoyment.
Why is it that those who want easy trails which already exist think that everything should be made an easy trail whether on horse or bike but if we ask to keep an existing challenging trail challenging, they claim that we want everything made "extreme".
I'm sure there's a proper name for that in psychology terms, transferring your failings onto others and then arguing against it.
Cuckoo - there's many, many people involved in that. Don't worry just yet.
Fasternotfitter- there are a lot of horse riders who are in the same mind as us. And walkers.
A very good point onzadog, we don't want things made extreme we want trails to remain in their natural state unless they are truly unpassable or dangerous to all users. The variety of trails are what makes the peak district so appealing to bikers as there is something for everyone, regardless of skill level.
Pook I can't imagine anyone that appreciates the natural beauty of the peak district is happy about what they have done up there. We could do with some horse riders and walkers joining us in condemning the work that has been carried out so far.
Working on it 😉
Well spotted Cuckoo.
But I suspect the document conceals more than it reveals. The purpose of the document is more administrative than informative. Its main purpose is to get 'block' approvals for all the planned expenditure - so that council officials don't have to keep going back to council committees to get approval for individual schemes. Its purpose is not about informing the public. It also gives them enormous flexibility as they can drop and insert new schemes at any time as long as they keep within overall spending approvals. You will also have noticed that the document uses the term 'various' regularly. Lots of scope for change there.
I did a quick word search for 'Rushup' and couldn't find any result which I thought strange given this is the plan of work for the financial year April 2014 to April 2015. No mention as far as I could see.
I think we need to ask the specific question.
Cuckoo, I couldn't find any reference to 'Chapel Gate' in DCC's service plan either.
More on grough
We've secured a meeting this morning with Secretary of State for Transport Patrick McLoughlin MP. His constituency is the Derbyshire Dales so we will be discussing Derbyshire County Council's trail maintenance in the White Peak which was causing controversy long before the Rushup Edge saga kicked off.
[url= http://www.peakdistrictmtb.org/index.php/55-patrick-mcloughlin-mp-and-white-peak-trail-maintenance-concerns ]More info here[/url]
Glad to hear things are still moving forward. Best of luck for today's meeting.
Things are moving forwards but the work has not been reversed yet. Anything less means mountain biking is doomed in the peak district. I appreciate the efforts of peakmtb, you have definitely made an impact, but is there something else that the hordes of bikers on here can be doing? Letter writing, protest rides etc?