Howard from Pedal & Spoke in Peaslake has posted news about some of the locals' trails in the Hurtwood. Looks like they're being 'managed' out of existence:
A crying shame, but I guess that's the nature of unofficial trails on private land...
I'm amazed they have been there that long to be honest.
All sounds like a bit of a hotpot & a mess between riders & landowners.
Can't say I blame the land owners, I wouldn't want the crazy amount of MTBers that appear in Peaslake at the weekend cycling through my garden either....i know it's massive and 'garden' is a vast understatement but the principle stands.
Can't access Howard's page but sounds grim especially in Evian and Amigos have gone. But it was always a sensitive area and boundaries have been pushed, so not unexpected if there is a negative reaction.
Think before you dig?
From Howard's post:
Trails such as Area 51, bear necessities, amigos, Mile stone and Evian will all be gone. Others such as Northern, lovely legs 'should' be fine they said as its far enough away from Mccasllisters house.
It could be all-change. That could provide an opportunity for new, better trails... if it's handled correctly.
The vast majority of the trails are unauthorised. As such this is no surprise. It's very possible to build new trails on the cleared land if people chose to do that although I for one find riding in de-forested wasteland rather dull.
Things change. This is no different. When I started riding most of these trails didn't exist and we enjoyed riding the bridleways and just playing around
Anyone know if barry knows best is a 'trail', as opposed to a footpath? I came round a corner on the weekend to find a rather large group of walkers stood in the middle, adamant it was a footpath. The decided not to move either, as people coming down the hill after us were discussing them being stood in the middle
TBH this happens regularly in our forest, no issues they have to manage the land. From what I see they dont destroy them. Its the machines that tracks across them but thats not the same as scrubbing them off completely. The cost would be prohibitive and pointless. Its normal forestry management damage. They will be gone in a few months. Our trails are back in use almost the moment they have gone, if not before. We all need to be tolerant and share what we have, even with walkers 😀 ok thats a step too far 😀
BKB, its not a footpath thats for sure.
Not surprised that the trails have gone, especially given how big some of the jumps had gotten and the frankly stupid levels of building on private land with little regard for the owners legal responsibility. (they were fun trails mind you..)
Having grown up there and ridden the area for 35+ years its evolved into something thats getting out of hand somewhat, with some rather large and increasingly arrogant groups of riders who do cause a lot of tension and animosity with the locals. Albeit they are in the minority, they are the ones people remember.
Frankly i am surprised anyone is still allowed to use the area.
It's a real shame - there was a great little loop of 3 or 4 trails over there but this happens. If that's a a genuine comment from the landowner it's a huge opportunity.
BKB, its not a footpath thats for sure.
BKB is an "officially tolerated" trail rather than a right of way footpath/bridleway. However, it *IS* crossed at 90 degrees by a footpath about half way along the first traverse. It's possible everyone was right.
When you get to the bottom of the trail if you turn right a bridleway takes you back up the hill fairly gently, if you turn left theres a footpath pretty much straight up the fall line after about 150m. It's a properly challenging climb but ridable in the right conditions (not too wet, not too dry).
Oh so I've already done my last runs down Evian and A51, what a shame. I have some sympathy with the landowner's POV too, as well as the trail pixies who did all the work.
Regarding walkers on BKB (have encountered same on Parklife/Yogs). My understanding is it's access land and pedestrians can go anywhere they want, so the best strategy would be to warn them about the likelihood of bike traffic and with a view to safety, suggest another route if possible. It may well be applicable to help them with that, or check up-trail for bikes if in a blind spot or they insist on continuing.
[b]Mass trespass of Kinder Scout[/b] [url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_trespass_of_Kinder_Scout ]here[/url]
From wikipedia:
"working class struggle for the right to roam versus the rights of the wealthy to have exclusive use of moorlands"
Not exactly the same but similar enough, area of natural beauty, building trails that are merely a track through the hills with perhaps an occasional jump.
And for working class substitute "the 99%".
don't build 'features' and there won't be anything to destroy. creating a subtle lip with rock on top of a mound is one thing, building kickers and gaps is another.
Not exactly the same but similar enough, area of natural beauty, building trails that are merely a track through the hills with perhaps an occasional jump.
I see utterly no connection between the right to enjoy the countryside by riding my bike responsibly on paths and tracks that already exist, and the right to go out with a shovel and dig shonky jumps on someone else's land without permission - especially where it leaves them with the legal liability if someone crashes and breaks their neck.
>the legal liability if someone crashes and breaks their neck
"Recent High Court rulings suggest that there is now a much reduced risk
of successful litigation should “invited” riders be injured as a result of their activities. There is a well established principle of “user beware” which enables other hazardous activities such as rock climbing and caving to take place on an own risk basis - with little chance of successfully suing the landowner if they fall off or get injured."
Didn't take me long to find [url= http://imba.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/GuidelinesForLandManagers.pdf ]this[/url]
Based on a quote from mark foster he is not particularly concerned about rider injuries as per the reasoning above but more if a rider hits a walker on his land. That said I can't think where would that would feasibly happen on the current trails as there are very few blind areas.
Anyhoo, it's shame, particularly about Evian. Can't help thinking that perhaps the big jump lines are a step too far with antagonising land owners.
Id guess the landowners are probably more of the opinion that perhaps having illegal tracks that are so popular they are 'named' is a step too far?
^^ thats all assuming you don't have any prior knowledge the trails were there i would assume, which the landowner on Winterfold plainly does. he has a responsibility to remove them or make them safe.
the fact is if people weren't just blindly doing it he might be approachable to get some legal authorised trails built.
As i touched on before, if people carry on and rebuild the trails without seeking permission first, we could very well see the whole area closed down for everyone.
freddy I'd suggest there's probably a difference, liability wise, between someone injuring themselves on a natural feature, such as a cliff, and a constructed feature that the landowner has 'allowed' (even if that means failed to remove).
Did you see that video a few weeks ago when a novice rider rode into a gap jump, OTB'd and was unconscious for a few minutes? Luckily I don't think he was seriously injured .. but he was lucky. That was on Evian, one of the trails that has been trashed.
Didn't take me long to find this
as a former board member of said organisation, I'm fully aware of said document and the cases and discussions upon which it was based, and more than happy to stand by my observations regards the liability burden created by unplanned and ungraded, unmanaged jumps built without landowner permission. I would point to your own argument being flawed by the caveat "should [u]“invited” [/u]riders be injured" clearly not reflecting the situation you are discussing 😉
Mass trespass of Kinder Scout
An entirely different concept.
The mass trespass/ramblers were campaigning for access to the countryside, which eventually lead to more RoW, access land, etc.
It is still completely illegal to create a trail on that land.
Same applies in Scotland, you can access any trail you like, but you can't just get your spade out and dig one, that's the 'responsible' bit of responsible access.
Issues like illegal trail building on a large scale are the kind of thing that will make access campaigning harder, not easier. We can't say "we want access to XYZ trail, we won't do any more damage than walkers and only use it in the dry, we promise" if other groups can then turn round and say "well just look at the Surrey Hills, you built 20ft gaps on footpaths you weren't even supposed to be on".
I'd support a mass trespass movement.
I'd support (illegal) trail building in appropriate areas.
I'd not support illegal trail building where the landowners already repeatedly said 'go forth and multiply'.
Stato - Foster runs around the hurtwood so would be very surprised if he didn't know the trails were there.
It's a shame there can't be something done which would make it worthwhile for the landowners. Charging in the car parks or something with the funds raised reinvested into trails (horse, walking and bike) and his pet heather regeneration project. Sadly I suspect if they charge for the car park there will be a lot of people with shiny new carbon bikes dumping their cars on any verge they come across to avoid paying a couple of quid.
We can't say "we want access to XYZ trail, we won't do any more damage than walkers and only use it in the dry, we promise" if other groups can then turn round and say "well just look at the Surrey Hills, you built 20ft gaps on footpaths you weren't even supposed to be on".
Indeed - I am firmly of the opinion that Wheatons law should be the guiding principle that applies to all mountain bike access issues. Building gap jumps etc. on unauthorised trails clearly fails that test.
Did you see that video a few weeks ago when a novice rider rode into a gap jump, OTB'd and was unconscious for a few minutes? Luckily I don't think he was seriously injured .. but he was lucky. That was on Evian, one of the trails that has been trashed.
Saw that, and first and foremost I'm glad the guy was OK, but to be fair that double has a massive chicken run next to it which is actually more on the trail line than the jump. I was struggling to work out quite how he'd managed to make such a big hash of it given it didn't look like he even tried to jump it. The cause there was poor riding and situational awareness, man made feature or not. Most of the SH features are pretty obviously there.
Given it sounds like a logging contract I think the trail destruction is more a consequence of that anyhow.
That was on Evian, one of the trails that has been trashed.
I wasn't aware of that - I suspect that sets the backdrop very effectively in that case.
Gotama - Member
That said I can't think where would that would feasibly happen on the current trails as there are very few blind areas.
Yog Pots has a couple of blind corners/entry points, Summer Madness where it connects to Charlie Bronson, not forgetting the 90 degree left hander about a third of the way down SM. Even the start of BKB and Evian can be a bit blind in the height of spring/summer when the scenery is colourful.
The more I think about it, I can think of quite a few blind areas, most trails seem to have them at some point. 🙁
mattjg - MemberDid you see that video a few weeks ago when a novice rider rode into a gap jump, OTB'd and was unconscious for a few minutes? Luckily I don't think he was seriously injured .. but he was lucky. That was on Evian, one of the trails that has been trashed.
I'm still confused as to how he ended up on that line as it's easier to take the chicken line (as I do). I can only assume he thought the jump was simply a single lip and not a gap and then changed his mind hence his 'angle of attack'.
Anyways, sad news, I really enjoy Bear Necessities and Area 51, more so than the other trails on Winterfold. 🙁
I don't understand the connection between the unsanctioned trails and the landowner being worried about a MTBer hitting someone walking? Isn't that much more likely to happen on an existing bridleway or fireroad?
> I'm still confused as to how he ended up on that line as it's easier to take the chicken line (as I do).
> I was struggling to work out quite how he'd managed to make such a big hash of it
Judging by his bike & clothing, I suspect the issue was inexperience/ignorance, rather than an informed bad choice as such. I'm guessing he followed a 'bike trail' from the road on the assumption the straight (i.e. default) line was OK to ride. If I had a landowner hat on, that would be a concern certainly.
Anyhoo, it's shame, particularly about Evian. Can't help thinking that perhaps the big jump lines are a step too far with antagonising land owners.
The thing is, there are plenty of other big jump lines there, and a bit of spade work could have extended them further.
Instead, they chose to build one right next to one of the most popular trails in the area, and in full sight of the bridleway running up the small valley in the middle. It was hardly subtle.
I'm sure new trails will come in time.
Does anyone know if Secret Santa is still in use? Had some friends ride it a few weeks ago & they bumped into a certain Mr McAllister half way down it, asking them to leave...
> I would point to your own argument being flawed by the caveat "should “invited” riders be injured" clearly not reflecting the situation you are discussing
I'm afraid I wont be convinced until I can read of a successful case of a mountain biker or someone on his behalf successfully suing a land owner for getting injured on a jump built in these circumstances.
Perhaps I am a leftie, but I am not that sympathetic to millionaire land owners.
mattjg - MemberJudging by his bike & clothing, I suspect the issue was inexperience/ignorance, rather than an informed bad choice as such. I'm guessing he followed a 'bike trail' from the road on the assumption the straight (i.e. default) line was OK to ride. [b]If I had a landowner hat on, that would be a concern certainly[/b].
As would I to be honest. I think there have been a few accidents on Evian over the years. Apparently early this year someone broke their collarbone at the bomb hole on Evian which led to the entry lip being smoothed out/rounded. Of course that could just be bollocks but if I've heard it then others have too.
Hob NobDoes anyone know if Secret Santa is still in use? Had some friends ride it a few weeks ago & they bumped into a certain Mr McAllister half way down it, asking them to leave...
I did Secret Santa last Thursday and it was rideable for its full length. It's a lovely trail too, only found it 6 weeks ago after months of looking. 🙁
As would I to be honest. I think there have been a few accidents on Evian over the years. Apparently early this year someone broke their collarbone at the bomb hole on Evian which led to the entry lip being smoothed out/rounded. Of course that could just be bollocks but if I've heard it then others have too.
There was a broken ankle in the summer also I think (ouch). And more importantly my mate cracked his Lynskey on that drop!! [b]This madness has to stop!![/b]
A novice rider probably didn't even know what a gap jump is. You could definitely hurt yourself on Evian eg at the bomb hole, I nearly concussed myself on the original summer lightening when I head butted a tree after failing to make a corner.
A lot of the Surrey Hills are access land which means walkers and bikers can go where they want. A walker has just as much right to walk up a "trail" as a biker has to ride down it.
There is a logic that building trails on land cleared by forestry means it's less likely to be messed with again.
simons_nicolai-uk - Member
BKB is an "officially tolerated" trail
While locals may tolerate it, it's official in every sense. It's been officially funded. Same goes for Yoghurt Pots and Summer Lightning. They're the only trails in Surrey Hills that are official, and approved by land owners and council.
The footpath issue might be people looking on Google and seeing a marked path with BKB named on it. It isn't it's a marked bike trail that someone has submitted to Google. Same with Open Street Map.
If anyone says it's a footpath, present them with an OS map and ask them to point it out.
Yog Pots have come across walkers, including an entire family just round a corner at speed, just standing around with their dog!
All on Hurtwood land though, inc these two are open access unless there is a sign up saying otherwise. That's part of the unique deal with the Hurtwood. Even parts of Winterfold that are part of Hurtwood includes the likes of Evian means they're open access. Free to walk or ride on it. However digging still remains a criminal damage offence.
Map of Hurtwood areas if anyone's interested.
🙁
But others will come to replace them.
GB
jambalaya - MemberA novice rider probably didn't even know what a gap jump is. You could definitely hurt yourself on Evian eg at the bomb hole, I nearly concussed myself on the original summer lightening when I head butted a tree after failing to make a corner.
Agreed, I've had a few spills myself down there. Clipped a rock on Evian and sprained my wrist, took one of the kickers on BKB but ran out of talent before the chicane corner, stacked it into a tree after the bomb hole on Summer Madness (that one was particularly sobering as I was by myself and it was late on a Sunday evening).
Judging by his bike & clothing, I suspect the issue was inexperience/ignorance, rather than an informed bad choice as such. I'm guessing he followed a 'bike trail' from the road on the assumption the straight (i.e. default) line was OK to ride. If I had a landowner hat on, that would be a concern certainly.
I get your point, but as both if us said, the jump is not the default line there, you have to intentionally keep right to hit it, and it's pretty obvious it's a gap too.
Any how's it gone now sadly.
the jump is not the default line there, you have to intentionally keep right to hit it, and it's pretty obvious it's a gap too.
I think that we fall in to the point there of 'that's fine if you know it' but we have to realise that in a diverse and growing sport, not everybody will, and where you have a network of unofficial, semi-official and official trails, allied with both wildcat and organised/permitted building, with no way for the rider (who may be a stranger to the area or a novice) to know which is which, and in the absence of any formal waymarking, grading or inspection regime - Put all those together, and you have the potential for a number of pretty big issues. Essentially that's very close to the position CE at Swinley were in a couple of years ago, and the number of compensation payouts resulting (along with NE concerns over SPA bird species) were what led to the massive rethink that saw the current red and blue trails built.
I think I'll miss evian the most. At least my last run down there was a good one- dry conditions, on my own with a clear run, absolutely hammering to try to catch a group. Shame
When I first rode the Surrey hills 12(!) years ago it was popular. On a recent visit I was gobsmacked. How do the Peaslake locals cope with the amount of riders?! So I wouldn't mourn the loss of unofficial trails too much. The digging needs to stop full stop if its unofficial.
Especially if someone hurts themself on a dugout/changed trail - the argument 'you should walk it/spot it before/have the skills don't wash.
Mags like MBR mbuk etc seem to run bi-monthly trail features on the Surrey Hills. Great for their haymarket or whatever sales but too much pressure on a delicate balance with locals IMO.
^^ that's because they are the ones digging illegally... They really should know better
There would be less bikers in Peaslake if the shop stopped baking cheese straws.
Yes it's a busy place with a lot of people using it for all kinds of recreation on a daily basis. This is no bad thing. How much money do you think is spent by mountain bikers alone in the local shop, pub and surrounding areas?. I think for all the downsides the locals would agree that it keeps local businesses alive and vibrant.
As for trails it needs more work, more legal trails for all abilities. Make them official, get them way marked and graded. Volunteer groups to maintain them. Focus on what you can do in the areas you can, try and win over hearts and minds of the locals...or am I day dreaming?.
I was somewhat relieved when the entry to the Evian bomb hole was smoothed. Shame to lose such a fun trail.
Now I just need to master the bomb hole on SM!
Given the numbers that congregate in the village and at WB CP, I am always amazed at how uncrowded the trails are - even the well known ones. As for runs like SM, I have never seen anyone on there even at weekends which makes me feel nervous about screwing up the bomb hole and no one being around
I think for all the downsides the locals would agree that it keeps local businesses alive and vibrant.
Unless it's changed, sadly a lot of locals think the pub and shop would exist quite happily without mountain bikers. That said, I've never set foot in the pub whilst there on the bike but would stop whenever I passed the shop no matter what the form of transport.
Sneaky trails are sneaky trails, you expect them to vanish. Is no consolation to the builders but it's inevitable.
I suspect the pub would now survive without bikers. The food is excellent in both the bar and restaurant. The shop I'm not so sure although there's quite a lot of roadies that use it as a stop.
Dan milners Instagram comment seems to take a bit of a swipe at the landowner which seems a touch pathetic. .........." Milestone jumps destroyed because they annoyed one very fortunate wealthy individual."
He has few fans among the locals...
He cares (the right word?) alot about preserving riders long-term access to the area
Glad I got a last ride of Evian on Sunday then! Shame as I thought it had survived since Area51 and others had already been destroyed by then but I can understand the issue with the trails being illegal. Only just found Secret Santa this past weekend and was hoping to revisit soon but guess we should give that area a miss in general to help the situation settle down.
The pub survives on the posh locals paying for expensive meals and having events there. The bikers are a side trade. Though at least a little more welcome than in the past.
daver27 - Member
^^ that's because they are the ones digging illegally... They really should know better
Indeed. There's a reason Evian is also known as MBR 😉
hora - Member
He cares (the right word?) alot about preserving riders long-term access to the area
Not the right way to go about it though. If you want that, then has to be approved (and sanitised) trails.
Not knocking the trails though. I much prefer the cheeky stuff, but illegal dig then expect them to go.
It's a shame and I regret the loss of the pixies' efforts, but those of us who have been knocking around a few years (..decades) have seen this cycle before, it'll work out.
What goes down comes up and it's near impossible to police too.
Dare I even say it, but Winterfold's not the best riding in the area anyway. Shhhhhhhhh.
It's a shame those trails are gone, and good on Howard for reporting responsibly.
A couple of things*:
1) Landowners aren't worried about legal precedent, they're worried about the cost and complexity of fighting what might be an entirely vexatious case. And it's usually not the cyclist / walker / horserider suing, by the way - it's the insurance company they or their employer claim from because they can't work. The Forestry Commission self insures as a government organisation, and theoretically, they should be pretty chilled out about liability at grass roots level, but they aren't. Even the threat of a court case will have key workers - administrators and foresters - working for months on gathering evidence and doing court related admin when they could be maintaining forest or helping, say, volunteer trailbuilders.
2) Build something that's likely to cause injury, and the landowner or manager will be obliged to level it. Those of you who have ridden this area for years will remember the Ewok Village and the Coffin Drop. If it looks fricking dangerous to a layman (or a factor, or a land manager, or a landowner) and they've found out someone has splashed themselves all over that trail feature, it's going to go - no two ways about it. In the case of the Coffin Drop, the poor chap that crashed was paralysed (and, as far as I know, still is a paraplegic) - I challenge anyone in the situation that landowner found themselves in to not close that feature down.
3) If you look *carefully* at the sanctioned stuff that's been built with the agreement and assistance of the National Trust, Hurtwood Control, Forestry Commission, CTC and others, it's built to a very exacting standard, and contains interesting features that, if you know what you're doing and are a capable rider, are possible to ride enthusiastically. A lovely example of this is that video of a certain pro riding SL2. Few mortals could do what he's doing, and it's not just an issue of massive balls, but also massive technical chops. The point is: if you're not that quick or that good or that experienced, it's still a challenge to ride, but it's likely to be a lot less lethal, too.
As said above, this is a cycle, it's been 'round before, and every time, people learn from it. The learning is this: build stuff that's big, big, big without the landowner's consent and approval,and they'll be obliged, sooner or later, to steamroller it - whether they want to or not.
[i]* Increasingly wizened trail building geezer, involved in shoveling and committee work around a few of the sanctioned trails 'round these parts, plus third junior assistant spade holder on a few of the early '00s Dragon DH tracks in South Wales. I've made these points a few times, but sometimes it bears repeating. I remember when it was all fields etc.[/i]
A surprisingly thoughtful set of comments on this thread. But something has gone unsaid. There's a type of rider that has become prevalent in this far corner of the Hurtwood that doesn't understand the issue of consideration for others: others who own land, others who want quiet enjoyment of the countryside (a right given by and expressed in the Hurtwood Constitution), etc. They have taken a "fu22k em" rebelious attitude, inspired by a completely heedless tattooed individual they have made into an aspirational hero. This is the payback, and they've gone too far. It used to be a network of discrete trails, part on deer tracks and part on existing tracks, that we all enjoyed reasonably discretely, and landowners (mostly) turned a "blind eye" to our activity. But in order to s**** off to his MBR mates, they've created a negative attitude in the landowners, that in the end helps nobody. Serious research a year ago showed that white van driver with his staffy, tattoos and chains is primarily determined in this mold by an innate characteristic that distinguishes him from others, a "distinct lack of ability to consider others and the consequences of his actions". Say no more.
Time for this tribe of "yeah matey" disciples to leave, or learn to be more considerate. With the changes in ownership taking place with more sales of the Hurtwood, the future may not be so tolerant.
@tmh, the key thing is to tell everyone you rode Evian with complete confidence in the full knowledge that you'll never be asked to "go on, show us then" plus I wouldn't ride it on those clown wheels either 😉
Alps long weekend in 2016, you'll never again think a Surrey Hills bomb hole is anything but the merest dimple.
Ouch! 😀
My sarcastic intent didn't come across in my last post. He doesn't care about long-term. Also from other poster comments why can't he quieten it as the impact long-term will be?...
A lot of the Surrey Hills are access land which means walkers and bikers can go where they want. A walker has just as much right to walk up a "trail" as a biker has to ride down it.
Not so. Access land extends rights to walkers, runners and climbers only.
He cares (the right word?) alot about preserving riders long-term access to the area
No he doesn't! He'd ban everyone from his land if he could. Complete opposite to the Hurtwood!
restandbethankfull
Ballsh1t - You have everything to be thankful for what Dave has brought to the Surrey Hills. Unless you were happy riding Yoghurt Pots on repeat..
Anyway he's not been building up that way for years...
Posh locals- these will be the polite, intelligent and engaging ones that I've met then. Not the new money, arrogant entitlement riders who flock down from London every weekend.
Please don't say anything bad about thel ocals. They are probably sick of the swams of people now that arent polite back. This has been going on for years.
>Ballsh1t - Unless you were happy riding Yoghurt Pots on repeat
Agree.
Even if there were no 'features', there would be injuries, unless you were to route all trails away from trees and remove every root.
Unofficial trails will exist wherever there are mountain bikers, we only have what we have because of some others pushing the boundaries.
Fine line that.
McAllister is hardly known for his welcoming and progressive attitude though, I doubt any injury risk was really a contributory factor.
Plenty of people get injured riding on the road, so not sure about the 'danger' of trails really.
as far as i am aware 'access land' does not give rights to bikers that are as extensive as those granted to walkers. we share the same rights of access as horseriders - ie we're confined to specified tracks/access roads.A lot of the Surrey Hills are access land which means walkers and bikers can go where they want
The Forestry Commission self insures as a government organisation, and theoretically, they should be pretty chilled out about liability at grass roots level, but they aren't. Even the threat of a court case will have key workers - administrators and foresters - working for months on gathering evidence and doing court related admin
I've had a ranger I've known for some years, and who has been in the Commision for some years longer than I've known him, tell me that no case has ever been brought against the FC in any respect to trails/riding.
Pook - Member
A lot of the Surrey Hills are access land which means walkers and bikers can go where they want. A walker has just as much right to walk up a "trail" as a biker has to ride down it.
Not so. Access land extends rights to walkers, runners and climbers only.
I've had a ranger I've known for some years, and who has been in the Commision for some years longer than I've known him, tell me that no case has ever been brought against the FC in any respect to trails/riding.
I can state categorically that I know that to be incorrect, in fact I know of at least one case brought in the last couple of years, which was only unsuccessful because the FC were able to demonstrate an extensive and effective inspection and management regime, with laid out protocols stating how trails would be dealt with. I also know for sure of other landowners without that regime who have had to pay out.
So Winterfold is pretty much down to one trail now? Shame about evian it was fun..
I'd always assumed that the big jump line dh from Evian (milestone?), being such a work of engineering, was officially tolerated or sanctioned.
Del - MemberI've had a ranger I've known for some years, and who has been in the Commision for some years longer than I've known him, tell me that no case has ever been brought against the FC in any respect to trails/riding.
Definitely not true sadly. Whether any of them have been succesful I don't know but even nuisance cases are a... well, nuisance.
ninfan, good to know. any more info?
if not location etc. structures?
Pook - Member
Not so. Access land extends rights to walkers, runners and climbers only.
Not so with The Hurtwood. The Deed of Dedication on The Hurtwood allows all, except where otherwise signposted, including mountain bikes.
"In 2000, the CROW (Countryside & Rights of Way) Act gave everyone the legal right to walk throughout common land – but The Hurtwood dedication goes further. It gives people permission to ride over The Hurtwood, either on horseback or on bicycle – and in recent years mountain bikers have become some of our most active supporters."
http://friendsofthehurtwood.co.uk/dedication
This is fairly unique and overrides normal RoW. In fact a RoW in general are just a base point. Land owners are entitled to allow access and often do even where access is not granted by law through a public RoW. An argument you can often present to people when riding on a footpath. How do they know the land owner does not like you riding there?
It's just the natural cycle of things which aren't official, c'est la vie.
Forestry work will be done in a few weeks, some good souls will start clearing (most probably going to go up there and do some), things will evolve slightly into something better than ever.
I'm really happy with the timing though, just going into constant slop, i wouldn't be riding them anyway so really don't care. I'll be putting work in so it's all restored for spring though.
If people just go and start digging again it'll just piss off the land owner even more and the situation gets no better. He (Foster as I understand it, not Jim) has said he's open to bikes and there has been suggestions he would be happy for formal trails, but is not happy at all with illegal digging.
This is a time where various trail groups can work with him and the upcoming new owners of the other areas to work on an agreed solution that all would be happy with.
Remember, when it comes to The Hurtwood mountain bikers are a valuable asset. Money into the village shops, many are members of Friends of Hurtwood and donate much needed funds to keep then place open for all, many are also walkers or even horse riders.
Hoping to go this weekend - shame to miss my favourite trail (Evian) - still time to session the SM bombhole perhaps?
Either that or play on the hidden stuff 10 miles to the west!
Pook - Member
Not so. Access land extends rights to walkers, runners and climbers only.
Not so with The Hurtwood. The Deed of Dedication on The Hurtwood allows all, except where otherwise signposted, including mountain bikes."In 2000, the CROW (Countryside & Rights of Way) Act gave everyone the legal right to walk throughout common land – but The Hurtwood dedication goes further. It gives people permission to ride over The Hurtwood, either on horseback or on bicycle – and in recent years mountain bikers have become some of our most active supporters."
http://friendsofthehurtwood.co.uk/dedication
This is fairly unique and overrides normal RoW. In fact a RoW in general are just a base point. Land owners are entitled to allow access and often do even where access is not granted by law through a public RoW. An argument you can often present to people when riding on a footpath. How do they know the land owner does not like you riding there?
Just to explain, that (as so often) It's a little more complex than that
The land on the Hurtwood is registered common land, as such it would, ordinarily, be covered by 2000 CROW access rights, which would enshrine in law an irrevocable right to access on foot, subject to a number of scheduled restrictions. It would also be possible for a landowner to dedicate permanent and irrevocable access rights over and above this right of access on foot, eg for bikes and horses.
However, Hurtwood land is classified as excepted land for the purposes of CROW, since it has pre-existing access rights over and above this by nature of access agreements under the 1949 national parks and access to the countryside act, and a deed of dedication under s193 of the law of property act 1925 (which allows foot and horse access, but in general would technically make cycling on the land a criminal offence were it not for further permission) however this dedication remains revokable so there remains the possibility that access rights could be withdrawn in the future (in fact I believe the deed may also terminate automatically with the sale of the land too) but would then be protected on foot by CROW. Bike access is, I believe by nature of the 1949 NPA access agreement, which could also be ended, and separate access agreements with the friends of the hurtwood, which could also be terminated..
Which goes to show why it remains so important not to act like a dick whilst riding there.
still time to session the SM bombhole perhaps?
Reeeeeally? I find that vastly easier to ride than the bottom bit of Evian, which I never quite got right!
Yes, loved Evian once I realised bomb hole was not a big deal and used to enjoy the bottom section even on the old HT. Only found SM recently and on my own late in the afternoon. And was worried about making a mess of the exit on the bomb home. Didn't help that on first run there was an ambulance siren in the distance. I would like to see how much air (If any) you get on the exit
I am just being a pussy really !!
SM??? Summer Madness???
Chapeau and thank you to the 'rich' people of this area that allow us access. Think of it this way, why bother with the hassle. Would you in their position? I met Handa Bray once, a very inquisitive and nice person. I've also met and interacted with other residents from the area- the couple who set up a stall outside their country pile to teach their children about charity (they were selling home made lemonade and other drinks on a hot summers day). I got chatting to them and they didn't tell me that they'd made 'x' on their house sale or his job title like you'd hear in a Chorlton pub in Manchester (cough BBC staff). Anyway I'm tipsy. Good night. I'll never be rich but I won't bregudge those that do better. Especially if they still have a thought for their fellow man. Yes there will be the exception but maybe that person is annoyed by his/her experience on their doorstep of their home.
Yes I think so. Nice trail with v scary (almost hidden jump on LHS about half way down) and bomb hole 3/4 of way down. Starts just to the left on one car park.