Forum menu
Trailmonkey - I suggest you find out more about the area and how it is managed.
Your simplistic analysis and the point you make is simply not valid in this situation.
Crazy-legs (and others). Saying the Cairngorms are remote enough that no significant numbers will go there is absurd. The whole area is encircled by A roads. You can access several of glens right to the heart of the area along easy tracks. The most popular access point has 3 huge car parks at 600m, less than 3km from peaks of over 1200m, and the mythical plateau beyond. If you've ever been in Sneachda or out touring on a winter weekend you'd realise that (for better or worse) it is precisely the easy accessibility of the plateau that has generated so much controversy over the years. To imagine that mtbers are different to skiiers, climbers, or walkers to the extent that they aren't going to travel to places that are as accessible as this is nonsense – and there are surely far more cyclists than skiiers/climbers in the UK. I'd argue that the Cairngorms are amongst the most accessible mountain ranges in the UK.
Not, I might add that the ease of accessibility is (to me) any way central to questions as to what form that access should take, or as a foundation on which to formulate ethical behaviour - just that the premise 'the Cairngorms are remote and therefore only small numbers will go there' is demonstrably false.
Trailmonkey - interesting. You could have some good dissertation material here... Your and TJ's arguments beat the essays I'm supposed to be marking anyway. 😉
its just a hill though isn't it? . Its not like its going to implode all of a sudden by riding it. They've been there for (millions?) of years, before park rangers, observatories etc, and have been used my million of people for walking, horse riding etc and during wars and battles etc way before cars were thought off and roads built and they've lasted the effects of all this very well.
So surely for our generation to use them for walking and bikes will also mean that long after we die they will still be there being used by further generations and alot less than say 200 years ago with cars etc being the main mode of transport ( before, letters were sent by horseback, now we just pop em in a red box). Surely what perishes now will grow back later or even new discoveries will happen. Its just lifes cycle.
So, i'll still be continuing to jump on my bike and ride where i can when i can. !!
This Spring weather's absolutely charming isn't it?
So - it's all a matters of scale. If we agreed the latter figure of one thousand walkers, would it be OK to let 999 more people stravaig over the summit and then close it down?
I'm not sure that I understand the question... and even if I did I feel that I would probably be unable to provide an answer..
My interest in conservation is on a grass roots ( 🙂 ) level.. If an area has been deemed fragile or of scientific interest then I will assume that it's probably [i]better[/i] not to ride my bicycle through there..
I won't ride my bike through a nature reserve as a rule either..
Forgetting the minutae of the debate over access versus conservation.. exercising your right to ride through a fragile environment [i]just because you can[/i] is not just insensitive.. it's poor PR.. higher numbers of folk riding in such a place won't do the mtbing fraternity's cause any favours as far as I can see..
Disregarding the 'science' and the hair splitting and ego bashing and point scoring on this thread.. my point is simply that avoiding damaging a fragile environment seems like a sensible and responsible way to behave to me..
Trying to argue against this or promoting a fragile (and seemingly controversial) area as a cycling destination seems a bit bloody minded..
My interest in conservation is on a grass roots ( ) level.. If an area has been deemed fragile or of scientific interest then I will assume that it's probably better not to ride my bicycle through there..
yunki, the point that i and some others have suggested is that this very assumption needs challenging. For some reason, conservation and heritage management has been hijacked by the scientific and historical academic community to the point whereby we just accept their raison d'etre without question. The question being why is conservation more important than other usage and what do we lose or gain by its pre-eminence ?. See my above post concerning aboriginal cave art at Uluru National Park as an example of how this assumption about uses of heritage can work to exclude cultural meaning and that is why it is always important to challenge it.
So you are saying you wouldn't walk through a nature reserve on a path, either side of the path remains unharmed, how do you think ramblers propel them selves hover boards fueled by hot air.
For some reason, conservation and heritage management has been hijacked by the scientific and historical academic community to the point whereby we just accept their raison d'etre without question. The question being why is conservation more important than other usage and what do we lose or gain by its pre-eminence ?.
This may well be true in some cases but clearly is not in the case of the cairngorm plateau which is managed as a compromise between the commercial interests in the ski area and funicular, the mountainwalkers and bikers and the casual tourists.
When the funicular was built many on the conservation side argued that the development should not go ahead at all or should be much modified to reduce the impact on the plateau.
If conservation was placed first as you state then there would be no funicular and far more limited access to the mountain.
The management of land on the plateau is a careful compromise between competing interests and all sides are considered and management is not in the hands of
scientific and historical academic community
Unfortunatly you have decided that your particular point which I fully concede is relevant and pertinent in many cases applies to this situation where in fact it clearly does not.
Same old argument coming up again its the wheels of few against the feet of many! Common sense applies here. Stop hugging moss!
Unfortunatly you have decided that your particular point which I fully concede is relevant and pertinent in many cases applies to this situation where in fact it clearly does not.
Look tj, i'm not going to go round and round this one. Quite frankly, I think the rest of the forum is bored with our arguing. The point I'm making is that people should not blindly accept that conservation is the over riding principle that should be obeyed in [b]all[/b] conteseted matters of heritage usage. I am not arguing and at no point have I argued that this is the policy of the NP ( is it a NP ? ) I have merely questioned the assumptions of the forum posters, yourself included that conservation is the over riding value that we must adhere to.
spando - Member
Same old argument coming up again its the wheels of few against the feet of many! Common sense applies here.
+1
if there are existing tracks, paths, i really don't see the issue.
if bike riders are cutting new trails then i could understand the argument.
in my experience walkers are more likely to stray from the path than bikers.
trailmonkey - Member
...I have merely questioned the assumptions of the forum posters, yourself included that conservation is the over riding value that we must adhere to.
I agree.
Too often conservation is used to exclude us spotty oiks from areas that are then reserved for the upper echelons of the eco-elite.
I see conservation issues in Scotland as a potential ploy to restrict our right of movement, and hence I am wary of any argument where this can be done.
Particularly when we are seeing wholesale bastardisation of our mountainscapes with a pox of heavily subsidised windmills.
it's a fair point that you're making trailmonkey... but I'm pretty sure that I've heard you ( I may well be mistaken on this.. it could have been a. n. other dartmoor local ) on here before playing down the attraction of a certain SW national park to try and keep the numbers down..
I ride in that national park.. and also an off limits unesco world heritage site in the same part of the country..
I choose not to advertise these places as cycling destinations in a glossy magazine though..
I've little against a handful of cyclists riding where they damn well please.. but I'm also glad in some ways of the restricted access in our part of the world... cos it's a good way of reducing the volume of traffic..
I can therefore totally sympathise with TJ and the like for getting a bit edgy when they are confronted with dodgy attitudes concerning conservation..
Same old argument coming up again its the wheels of few against the feet of many! Common sense applies here
you're assuming that all people on bikes are possessed with common sense and this thread is proof if any was needed that your assumption is most definitely naive..
Its not the responsible people I have issue with - its the thought of people like SimonFBarnes and his bogtrotters that makes me cringe
likewise it seems 🙂 Oh and FYI I would think the other Bog Trotters would fiercely deny being "mine"! They can think for themselves and rarely take any notice of me.
He believes that bikes cause no erosion, that riding alongside built paths is OK when the armoured path is inconvenient to ride and that he should be able to lead large groups of people anywhere anytime.
I never said I don't think bikes cause erosion, though I don't necessarily care if they do. As I understand it the NP ranger thought it was OK to ride alongside the path in question (Dollywaggon Pike) too as it had never been designed for bikes. And I AM able to lead large groups anywhere I please - so get over it. And that freedom will only grow as the countryside becomes more and more depopulated of anyone able to intervene.
I choose not to advertise these places as cycling destinations in a glossy magazine though..
This is my point though! Scotland as a whole is pretty thinly populated (<6 million) which is fewer people than in London! I said the Cairngorms were remote and someone pointed out the A roads and car parks and access roads which is fair enough but
a) the magazine didn't promote it as a destination, it made it an article about some people out for a very tough, very remote ride which, by it's very nature, will only appeal to the hardcore few who actually know about outdoor rights vs responsibilities in the first place
b) it's sufficiently far away from the vast majority of people reading said article that they're not going to make a special trip to do it. Cairngorms is another 3hrs north of Glentress! That's what I meant about it being "remote". Even if they have built a sodding great car park near it (which would suggest that they're encouraging access to said fragile area)
I could understand it if it was somewhere in the Peak District which is within a 2hr drive of about 75% of the UK population but for somewhere like that which, even if you live in Edinburgh is a good 2.5hrs away, is ridiculous. Interview every single biker up there over the next year, I'm willing to bet no more than a couple of dozen will say they're there cos they saw an article in ST. (ironically this thread has probably done more to publicise the area than the actual article...)
Interview every walker up there and chances are there'll be an awful lot more of them and the route will be in every one of the mulititude of guide books about the area.
....although you do advertise it on the most popular forum for biking in the UK, Yunki? Whoops! I wonder how many folk will now want to ride the Cairngorms as a result of this thread, he mused in an ironic manner? I liked the earlier comment of two wrongs not making a right and was reminded of the Glasgow teacher telling his class of pupils that two positives can't make a negative. "Aye right!" came the reply. 😆
Crazy legs
I'm just waiting for the angry mob turning up at my door, Frankenstein style, after having read the article and this thread and after a two plus hour trudge down Strath Nethy following an attempt to retrace my tracks. I may get some chocolate Hob Nobs in to placate them. 😀
TJ v.s SfB
FIGHT!!!!
Oh get some choccy hob nobs in and I'll come and ride with you again! It's been a while. 😉 Bet you can still rip my legs off though. 🙁
[b]aye right...[/b]
As I said in an earlier post.. It's great that a debate has arisen as maybe a few folk will be encouraged by this thread to take the conservation issue to heart..
to be fair.. I haven't bought the mag yet.. so I haven't seen the article.. which is why I was keeping my observations general.. but this thread has indeed inspired me to go and have a gander when I'm up that way.. 😳
I'm pretty sure that I've heard you ( I may well be mistaken on this.. it could have been a. n. other dartmoor local ) on here before playing down the attraction of a certain SW national park to try and keep the numbers down..
it's unlikely. up until this year i've been running bike-dartmoor, an mtb touring company. the more the merrier would have been my mantra, if at least on legal trails.
it's possible that i have posted on here on a pro conservation agenda. i'm sure in the past before i embarked upon heritage studies i, like most people would make the assumption that conservation and minimal impact was always the way forward. in that regard the worm has definately turned for me.
Can't see a problem with it personally. If walkers can use it, so can bikes. There's no difference. If they wanted to use it for a race course then I can see the OP point.
More people going into the cairngorms is a good thing. Why cant we all ride in the woods? The same reason you don't walk in the woods!
Live for today, and enjoy what we have, if it looks nice to ride, then ride it!
The Scottish Outdoor Access Code (which has special legal evidential status regarding the interpretation of "responsible access" with the LRA) actually provides quite clear guidance - including the potential for voluntary agreements between land managers and recreational bodies, local authorities, SNH etc. to protect plants/birds/animals and erosion. In the absence of such local guidance (I assume that there is no special agreement with regard to cycling on the plateau since nobody has highlighted it) then it is about avoiding intentional or reckless damage rather than staying away all together.
The Cairngorms are already a highly regarded mountain bike location - but even in great weather in summer are hardly over run with MTBs, and are a vast area with many options.
Whilst the plateau is relatively close to the "road" its far from an easy trip up there with a bike - so its not going to get casual riders who think its a trail centre.
The weather is such that for ~6 months of the year the plateau will essentially be unridable (under snow / ice / ridiculous winds).
The weather is such that for the other 6 months there will only be limited opportunities for all but the most committed riders to visit the plateau (wind, rain, cloud).
Given that Singletrack is going to describe cycle routes/trips (thats what mags do) - is it less responsible to highlight the cairngorm plateau than somewhere that is already really popular, close to population centres and more likely to be "over-riden"? Or should mountain bike mags only describe cycling on man-made cycle paths (usually not on mountains!) where erosion management usually falls to the land manager?
Surely, the more unusual locations for riding, that give people inspiration for moving off the well trodden routes then potentially the better?
Finally are Singletrack readers not all a bit more refined than the MBUK/MBR etc readers - and therefore more likely to be responsible, as well as having enough imagination to find their own routes rather than only riding where the mag told them to? The absence of a "pull out" OS routemap should help ensure this.
>Given that Singletrack is going to describe cycle routes/trips (thats what mags do) - is it less responsible to highlight the cairngorm plateau than somewhere that is already really popular, close to population centres and more likely to be "over-riden"? Or should mountain bike mags only describe cycling on man-made cycle paths (usually not on mountains!) where erosion management usually falls to the land manager?<
Christ on a bike. Is it really necessary to keep banging on about this? Rightly or wrongly the Gorms plateau is an environmental sacred cow. You can argue til your blue in the face about the validity of the designation and / or all the other negatives man has wreaked upon that habitat but promoting mtb upon it is an 'argument' a lot of us would rather not have seen started.
>Finally are Singletrack readers not all a bit more refined than the MBUK/MBR etc readers - and therefore more likely to be responsible, as well as having enough imagination to find their own routes rather than only riding where the mag told them to? The absence of a "pull out" OS routemap should help ensure this.<
Funny you should raise that and it will be interesting to see where we are in 10 years time for example. IMO there's a bandwagon rolling now and they'll be on it sooner or later.
Heather - singletrack/sanni weren't the first people to ever ride a bike over the plateau, or even to write about it publicly. e.g. http://www.mtbbritain.co.uk/forum/lofiversion/index.php?t6083.html
Your sacred cow analogy is a good one. Just because some people see cow's as sacred should [i]I[/i] stop eating beef? Should anyone who writes a recipe for beef stew be stoned?
My point was whilst it IS a fragile environment, and excessive use (by bikes or walkers) will damage that environment - there are provisions within the LRA which would restrict or limit that access if it were actually required. The fact that (to my knowledge) neither SNH, the Highland and Islands Development Board (the land owner?) or the Cairngorms Conservancy Trust are actively doing anything to discourage the currently levesl of MTB use at the plateau suggests that the land manager do not see this as a significant concern.
You might not want to see the "argument" started - but actually I think the debate about where/when it is acceptable to ride is a constructive one - and one I'd encourage Singletrack to cover in its pages at some point!
Just because some people see cow's as sacred should I stop eating beef?
No, but it would be rather rude to eat their sacred cow when there are plenty of others in the field.
Typing this as I eat my crunchy nut cornflakes before I head out on the bike.
Heather bash
Is your argument predicated on the assumption that increased use will lead to a ban on bikes. Let's say it does. Why will that concern you? If you disagree with bike access and suggest that cyclists will be irresponsible, why worry? You're not going to ride there, are you? Or is it a case that you want to be able to ride there but would prefer others not to and for the likes of myself not to write or talk about it?
If you are suggesting that you are responsible but others aren't, what makes you more responsible than the next rider? Would you prefer no one talks or writes about the area so only the exclusive elite get to know about it and ride the trails that exist up there?
If we as a user group are banned, is the worry that the ban will extend? If it is, this would suggest to me that you regard mountain bikers as a collective as being irresponsible in which case I too would suggest we are meriting of a wider ban on access. Quite the contrary, I firmly believe that by demonstrating that we can ride in sensitive areas with respect and an awareness of our surroundings, we strengthen our case as a user group, not weaken it.
Talk of banning mountain bikes is something that is close to my heart. Instead of worrying about what might happen in ten years time, I decided to do something about it and joined my local access forum. You might be surprised to know just how much the various user groups have in common and there is not in my experience a push to ban mountain bikers or limit our access. Better to be on the inside and have a voice than just post on a forum doomsday scenarios.
On that note, I'm off to ride my bike in a responsible manner. I may even write about it too!
Oh and before I go, following on from what poly says, I'd much rather that we have a public discussion of access and the ability of us as a user group to do so responsibly than cower in fear of what might happen. Much better to use the article as a basis to engage with the stakeholders and work with them than paint them to be anti bike and us being the enemy.
Agree with Sanny above, that if nothing else this has triggered a big debate about responsible access which will hopefully encourage everyone to think more about it. It's not just the Cairngorms, it's everywhere. Has anybody on this forum not done rides where you are cutting ruts across soft terrain?
Haven't read through all of this thread, but how can riding a bike responsibly (i.e no skidding or riding soft patches) in the Cairngorms [u]on the huge network of existing walking paths[/u] cause any more damage than the walkers have already done?
IMO most of the damage to the environment in the Cairngorms has nothing to do with walkers or MTBs. Look at the Larig Ghru for example. Hundreds of walkers go through every year. almost none go more than 10 yards either side of the path. Riding the tops will be the same.
Most of the damage to the hills and glens is caused by the over population of deer. Almost nobody talks about it. I've been visiting Glen Feshie for the last 40 years. It used to be a bit of a heather desert. Lots of old pines but no young trees. Thousands of deer though. The current owners have cut deer numbers to a fraction, maybe 10% of former numbers. The glen is recovering without fencing. It's incredible seeing the young growth all up the glen now.
That's private owners. Meanwhile the part of the Gorms in public ownership continued the old way with deer overgrazing the place to death. Seems to be changing now though.
I appreciate the tops are more fragile than lower areas but I still say in the big picture a few MTBs riding on the paths make no difference.
Sanny - you've not demonstrated that "we" (as a collective) can ride in sensitive areas with care and respect. You did a ride, you wrote an article.
Based on my own experience I cited an example of irresponsible behaviour (and it continued right the way down, or rather through, a newly built path.) Not isolated either unfortunately. If that's what's happening with the very few numbers going there at present it doesnt fill me full of confidence when these numbers increase.
So yeah, I'm in no rush to proclaim the wonders of the Cairngorm plateau to the mtb community at large...
We aren't talking about the douse suburbs of Glasgow here or even the myriad trails up to an including the Lairig Ghru - the OP concerned the plateau itself -yeah? So to widen the debate, perhaps there's one person from these 6 pages on THE local access forum who can give us their take on it?
it is an 'argument' a lot of us would rather not have seen started.
which sounds to me rather like "Lah lah I'm not listening". Once the cat is out of the bag it cannot be stuffed (or wished) back again.
Hmmm. Can I demonstrate that all mountain bikers are responsible. Of course not, absolutism is a dangerous path to take and one that leads to inevitable failure. However, on the basis of the reader survey of some while back, I recognize the audience my article will typically be read by - well educated, decent level of disposable income, knowledgable of environmental issues. On the basis of this thread alone, the awareness of our environment and our impact is clearly demonstrated. Taking that you agree with that demographic, I would suggest that your argument that the article will have the impact of encouraging irresponsible behavior somewhat flawed and does the average reader a grave disservice. Just where is the flood of irresponsible riders coming from? If folk are behaving badly already, they may continue to do so whether out of ignorance or simple disregard for their surroundings. However, if they read the article (have you gotten round to reading it yet?), I would hope that it raises an awareness of the issues should they chose to ride up there. I suspect I give more credit to the typical reader than you and you are unlikely to change your mind on that.
Ultimately, all credit to you for being passionate about the issues. That can only be a good thing. However, as flattering as it is that you think the article will have such a significant impact as to encourage scores of irresponsible riders, the demographic of readership would suggest otherwise.
A little late to this but I enjoyed the article and didn't get the urge to take a big travel bike up there and ride off the paths. I didn't get the impression that Sanny was encouraging us all to move the Singletrack Weekender to the region and it seemed a reasonably balanced article given it touched on the fragility of the landscape.
I must say that trailmonkey's posts have been quite thought-provoking. Certainly here in the South I've felt that the word 'conservation' has been uttered and everyone blindly accepts it.
Wildlife Trusts, imo, have their own agenda and often can be motivated by grants etc. without looking at the big picture or indeed local picture affecting local people.
trailmonkey - is there anywhere I can read more about this 'alternative' viewpoint?
Haven't got round to reading the mag yet, just looked at some stunning pics though. 🙂
Hey Sanny, hope you're well.
Not read your article yet (heard it was well written!), but don't think my remarks need me to know the details because my concern's mainly about the effect of it being published, and not so much what it said.
For me, I know the ride well, did it a few times in the past when I knew a bit less about the area than I do now. Would I go back and do it again, probably not unless I was solo and up there by 5am like the first time to avoid pissing folk off, or with (a)nother rider who fully understands the background and knows how to ride this kind of terrain.
I now know how sensitive the place is, how under the microscope it is, how political and hotly contested an area the Plateau is. Regardless of the rights and wrongs, the facts and fictions over erosion, feet versus tyres, walkers versus bikers, low or high volumes of riders likely to be attracted by your feature etc etc - for me, perhaps because I make a living from this game and want mountain biking to be sustainable, and because I know personally how much attention these kind of features generate – I’d probably hold back on publicising a ride like this in a magazine, and maybe just keep it to myself.
Magazine features can be a great way to boost business, and rural economies through increased tourism etc, great when the trail infrastructure can support the influx of new riders. But I also know that if the venue's as sensitised as this one, then any bad press (regardless of how justified it is) can undo a lot of great work (and goodwill) that's going on locally for bikers in the surrounding area.
Maybe publishing an article about the Cairngorms plateau can put the mountain biking 'community' on the (bad) radar as being irresponsible given the Cairngorms' special context. Your feature may not attract a ton of new riders, but there'll be quite a few nevertheless, some entirely responsible and capable of making minimal impact, others less so. We all know that ones and twos often don't make much impact, or attract too much attention, but going by the condition of some of the trails I know that have seen larger STW Forum rides, even with the best intentions a group can cause carnage on the landscape which unfortunately is undeniably and visibly bike related. Even the most skilled guide can't 'police' the whole group’s riding - the tell tale signs of folk unacustomed to riding this kind of trail, short cuts taken etc are all there to be seen.
And even if the feature attracts zero new riders, it's created quite a lot of forum debate here, and doubtless conversations all over the place that might be good and bad for the reputation of biking in that area.
I suppose given how much alternative, even better riding there is in Scotland, that I know won't cause such a furore, and is on much more stable terrain e.g. Torridon, would be enough of an argument for me to avoid riding and publicising certain places.
And I don't think that 'withholding' such route information means it’s just for some kind of elite, it just means that some places stay low key, get minimal traffic, keep the rambling police calm, stop biking bans, and any traffic they do get is from those that've probably got an appreciation of the terrain, are self sufficient and ride in small numbers.
I reckon that sometimes seeing a magazine feature encourages forum or club rides in larger numbers, which is fine for lots of places, but less so when it's at particularly sensitive venues.
Am I just getting old Sanny...
What do you think?
🙂
There's no problem, it's too far for the neds to travel, and then they'd have to get up the hill.
I must admit to suffering from eco-fatigue. It always seems to be a case of restricting ordinary people so the eco-saints can have exclusive access for their guided tours.
I'd ride there. I wouldn't shortcut, I wouldn't skid, and I suspect that is the case for anyone on here.
All that needs to be done is to make it clear that it is a sensitive area.
Even better I'd take my fat bike and make even less impact than a walker.
Yeah I guess for some folk mountain biking's always been on the wrong side of the 'eco-fence' - I guess my thinking's that regardless of the rights and wrongs, it's just cleverer to be mindful of what's on their radar, than ignore it, or advertise it.
keep the rambling police calm, stop biking bans
AFAIK "the rambling police" do not exist, and any supposed biking ban would lack any feasible enforcement, particularly in the current climate of savage cuts. There are no sensitive places, only sensitive people.
Hey Andy
You know for an article that virtually no one on this forum has read, it's generated an awful lot of debate! Will someone please just read the darn article 😆
Anyhoos, I'm good ta. Saw your coupon in What Mtb in Smiths today and I'm sure in MBR as well. You're becoming ubiquitous!
To answer your points, I thought long and hard before I wrote the article. I was and am keenly aware of the sensitive nature of the plateau so sought to see what the local take was. A quick web search and I found images of riding on the plateau posted by a local bike shop on their website and a local guiding company who offer Ben MacDui as a guided route. Coupled with the myriad of guide books on the area for walkers and climbers, I took the view that the cat was already well and truly out the bag. Coupled with the fact that either way up onto the plateau is going to be a really tough stretch for the average rider, there effectively exists a barrier to entry to all but the most committed.
Where I question things is the notion that in a fight club manner, it is ok to do the ride but we should keep quiet about it like naughty schoolkids for fear of being chastised for our actions. Either it is acceptable to ride on a preexisting network of trails that walkers have trodden in over decades or it isn't.
Good point well presented.
Garrrrrr! Bloody iPhone. Right. Where was I? Oh yeah, acceptable or not.....while we may justify our actions on the basis of only being seen by a few walkers means that we minimise the harm, how can you be sure? If the fear is one of restricted access, how many odd riders here and there does it take to form a critical mass of negative opinion leading to attempts to restrict access? We may co gratulate ourselves on being crafty and maintaining the status quo but is that healthy? Is it not better to address the thus far absent move to ban or restrict access by bike. Whether we acknowledge it or not, any such moves come from our collective actions and don't rest solely with an article.
Personally, I'd rather have the debate than live in fear of what might be. Beyond the realms of this forum and the magazine, I very much doubt that my riding on the plateau responsibly will be a catalyst for access Armageddon. If it is, it won't be as a result of one article but the cumulative effect of all the odd riders here and there doing their own thing.
Ultimately, if riding responsibly on pre existing trails leads to a ban then we have a far bigger fight on our hands than any of us are aware. If walkers can coexist in harmony with the plateau despite their reported pooing in the open, creation of cairns, churning up tracks with their walking poles, are they not the real offenders who should be first on the banning list. Of course, it may be that mountain bikers are an easier target as we lack a single collective voice in such matters. Perhaps now is the time to address that? In Englandshire, collective acceptance of the laws pertaining to footpaths and a near universal misunderstanding of the law and it's practical implications means that mountain bikers are made to feel like criminals when they ride footpaths. A single voice lime that of the Ramblers Association could help fight preconceptions and advocate sustainable reasonable access.
But I digress. It's late and I'm tired after a 4+ hour night ride up the Braes so will start rambling soon (oops, too late!)
Cheers
Sanny
Ps Na, you're not old, just a bit worn out! Ha! Ha!
Where I question things is the notion that in a fight club manner, it is ok to do the ride but we should keep quiet about it like naughty schoolkids for fear of being chastised for our actions
exactly so, I have intentionally abandoned this approach and received [b]WAY[/b] more criticism for it from other mountain bikers than from anyone else.
So you rode on the biggest bird reserve in Britain to promote debate over access?If so,picking your battles better should be a priority.We,being switched on about erosion by both groups know that there is debate over the damage caused by each.Does the average person in the street see both parties as causing equal harm? Not a chance. BTW,I was training at Glenmore last weekend and the article was a source of debate amongst users and staff.
Is that the same Glenmore that takes walkers and climbers over the plateau on an almost daily basis?