[url= http://theblackamoorsite.blogspot.com/search?q=cyclists ]http://theblackamoorsite.blogspot.com/search?q=cyclists[/url]
I really like the bit where litter in a tree is randomly attributed to mountain bikers !!!
He has a point though
The problem with cycling is chiefly the impact the wheels have on a path. A bike is much more efficient at eroding the surface of paths than a walkers boots for obvious reasons. It maintains constant contact with the ground, the two wheels tend to cover the same ground and it is more inflexible, harder to make adjustments (for example to go from stone to stone as a walker might). But I think my reservations go further even than that. There is something about the speed at which a cyclist travels and the fact he invariably and of necessity is looking at the ground in front of him. This singles him out from the walker whose pace is slower allowing him to look all round as he's walking thereby feeling more related to the country he's going through. Too often the cyclist unless he stops sees little of his surroundings which tends to disconnect him from where he is. This doesn't apply on a tarmac track or road, where normally the ground is smooth and consistent. A horse rider is not constrained in the same way. The horse itself looks after most of the decisions about where to put its feet.
haha, never been riding with shiteroll in my pack before, a doc leaf is much smoother
Horses are the very worst for eroding soft ground.
I like this bit,
The cyclists nearing the Seven Trees just visible in the above picture illustrate the image a salesman of mountain bikes would like to project. Idyllic scene on long summer evening, healthy outdoor exercise. In a better picture it could sell a few bikes. To me it's another part of modern life I can't quite understand. If I wanted to go out into the countryside and enjoy wilder places, why would I bother to take a bike with me? It restricts your freedom rather than adding to it.
but he is right here,
with the adjacent imageMore troubling than this is the increase in drinks containers cast aside considerately by cyclists.
[img]
[/img]
but here he is right,
Unlike the cyclists who try to make maximum speed with heads down all the time
Surface damage is proportional to weight - roughly;
Penrod are you shitting us?
Uh-oh look down the list, the tree climbers will be next to feel his wrath!
When you get back from a really good moorland scenic ride, what do you describe?
A. The rutted stone strewn path.
B. The annoying walkers that stop you looking at the floor.
C. The fresh air and scenery.
Reading his articles he doesn't sound exactly extreme in his views. I agree with many of them to a greater or lesser extent. The "litter must be cyclists" thing is a bit weird ("[i]drinks bottles and cans. Cyclists are definitely the culprits here.[/i]" - when was the last time you saw a cyclist with a can?) but other than that, what's the big deal?
people are to blame, not cyclists, people
apart from me
To be fair he has about half a dozen posts containing moans about cyclists and several hundred moaning about just about everying you could possibly imagine.
he's just a grumpy old bastard. he hates cyclists, car drivers, cows, young people, swp, farm vehicles, and farmers marking their sheep!!
FFS
Poor old fart.
And what biker would take cans of Carling out with them?! Anyone going to the bother of riding with beers wouldn't take that p*ss!
as if self respecting cyclist wouldn't drink carling!! - it's all micro brewery ale round here!
you not read it all yet ?
Walking of course is not a hobby or a lifestyle choice. It is a condition of humanity. And cyclists share that condition too - they don't have to take their bikes
Its this kind of guy, with narrow views of others needs, that leads to the segregated groups that lay claim to the Peak... me personally, I think there is room for everyone doing there thing in the Peak, walkers, horse riders, mtbers, 4x4, paragliders etc..
why create a divide ?
1. Fahre nur auf Wegen.
2. Hinterlasse keine Spuren.
3. Halte dein Mountainbike unter Kontrolle.
4. Respektiere andere Naturnutzer.
5. Nimm Rücksicht auf Tiere.
6. Plane im Voraus.
[i]and the self appointed practitioners of the new brand of conservationism.[/i]
From his own intro..Indeed
Alpin- my god thats what i wrote my german a-level on! 😀
seriously though, what a grumpy old man!
He does have a point, to an extent.
Riding on footpaths shouldn't be done, we all know this. Riding on bridleways is where we can ride, we all know this.
But kicking off about rubbish being the fault of the cyclist and how 'youthful cyclists race around and shock us' well, its a PUBLIC bridleway and you should be ruddy well aware that people may or may not be coming along.
You don't go to tesco's and get all huffy when someone stops in front of you?
What a silly old man. I'm surprised he could type with his blinkers on.
I am pretty sure that there were scientific papers published that concluded that:
a) It could not be determined whether bicycles cause more or less erosion than walkers
b) Horses definitely cause more erosion than either bicycles or walkers
If someone dislikes bicycles because they cause erosion, but not horses, they can naff right off. Plus, this guy thinks bikes are worse because walkers step from stone to stone instead of between them? Pretty rigorous science there, Hawking.
[i]this kind of guy, with narrow views of others needs[/i]
Quoting him,
"I approve of bicycles... I was a cyclist."
"Cycles have been driven off the road by selfish car drivers."
"I've never been fully happy with the mountain bike phenomenon in the countryside. But to allow them on bridleways seemed a reasonable compromise."
"I'm odd."
Doesn't seem wholly narrow minded to me. He just has a different opinion.
Reading his whole page he doesn't seem wholly unreasonable, but I do take umbrage with some of his views.
[i]'youthful cyclists race around and shock us' well, its a PUBLIC bridleway and you should be ruddy well aware that people may or may not be coming along.[/i]
You've never been for a walk and been buzzed by mountain bikers? There are plenty of people on bikes who don't really consider the fact that people don't have eyes in the backs of their heads and sound doesn't always travel as well as you might think. Not to mention that some people are simply deaf.
Just because it's a public bridleway doesn't mean that the people with the fastest mode of transport shouldn't slow up a bit for the others.
Obviously this is just a blog written by some git and if you disagree write your own half formed thoughts on wordpress instead of here and see if anyone cares. But...
There is something about the speed at which a cyclist travels and the fact he invariably and of necessity is looking at the ground in front of him. This singles him out from the walker whose pace is slower allowing him to look all round as he's walking thereby feeling more related to the country he's going through. Too often the cyclist unless he stops sees little of his surroundings which tends to disconnect him from where he is. This doesn't apply on a tarmac track or road, where normally the ground is smooth and consistent. A horse rider is not constrained in the same way. The horse itself looks after most of the decisions about where to put its feet.
I can't help thinking here he's missed a trick. i can't be the only person to have walked, run, and cycled around that area, and there's something zen like about the connection between the trail/land and yourself/bike that you feel when mountain biking that you just don't when walking. The idea you 'see more' when walking is nonsense - you might see different things, but that's not the same as saying you see less. He virtually says it himself, but then misses the point. Durr...
I've seen research that identifies mtb as having the least environmental impact, compared to dobbins and walkers. Makes sense as a high-volume, low pressure tyre will spread weight far better than a hard edge of a boot heel. I'd speculate that people like this are simply used to footfall erosion and see it as normal, while tyre erosion looks different and is therefore wrong.
It's also well known that walkers cause significant erosion of existing paths by walking around puddles and making paths wider, while we ride (wheelie) through them. I was quite amused by his point regarding how some cyclists had ruined a 'nice little path' that wasn't even a PROW (but it's still okay to walk on it).
As for cyclists looking down and not 'enjoying the countryside', it should be pointed out that I get to see considerably more of the countryside than if I was walking, as I cover so much ground.
I did try and comment on his blog, but could't find how.
Silly old bugger.
Burn him.
well i think he's a ****ing nobhead.
A bike is much more efficient at eroding the surface of paths than a walkers boots for obvious reasons. It maintains constant contact with the ground
as it maintains a constant contact with the ground surely it is causing less erosion. in much the same way that if you suffer with knee/joint problems you're better off cycling or swimming than jogging, less impact = less damage.
On Sunday afternoon (yesterday) three cyclists were observed on a route which was not a bridleway and not even a PROW. The result is a further mashing up of a pleasantly informal path.
presumably a "pleasantly informal path" is not a designated footpath but just a visible strip of eroded ground amongst otherwise untouched surroundings, presumably eroded by foot traffic which presumably is ok!
a classic case of do as i say and not as i do!
walkers are great aren't they? "I love walking around on the hills and forests of Britain, me" And yet so many of them bitch and complain and whine like crazy about every other living entity that has the audacity to even encroach on their self-imposed purgatory that is ensuring everyone else obeys their own interpretation of the law.
This cock has no idea about the law, history or significant factors in trail erosion, he just wants to bitch about people who are not like him. Leave him to it and laugh like a crazy loon if he complains.
His blogspot ratings just tripled though...
I am disgusted also .
But more with the fact that youre still up than owt else .
TFB
On erosion - my opinion from what I have seen - it depends on the terrain but one MTBer causes more erosion than 1 walker on the whole.
I have seen paths ruined by MTBers I have seen paths ruined by walkers Horses are the worst and inconsiderate people are bad for it no matter their transport but all other things being equal MTBs cause more erosion than walkers.
The answer is to be responsible and enjoy your access responsibly
but all other things being equal MTBs cause more erosion than walkers.
I have seen exactly the opposite asserted 🙂
SFB - that is what I believe from what I have seen. give it as much credence as it deserves, Its totally valid, rigourous and reliable Maaaaaaaaaaaaaaan.
No doubt in my mind that some local trail are wreacked by mountainbikes, its really easy to tell from the tracks on the ground.
Be aware and be responsible
I've just moved offices and the aged geezer I now share with was being quite sociable until he came out with the statement "You're a mountain biker aren't you" and the he proceeded the go into almort rant mode about how he was up on top of Helvellyn and a load of MTBers came passed and the charged off down the same down route as him and basically got in his way as he ambled down the hill side. He then stated that there was no way on earth they were allowed up there and that they should all be banned as it was obviously ramblers only up there.
I had a quick look on the internet and then pointed out to him that Helvellyn was the highest point in the Peaks with bridleway access and that legally bikes are allowed to ride on bridleways. He went quiet for a bit then said "just as well I didn't shout at them then". He's been nice as pie since.
The world is populated with grumpy old b4stards that have two opinions.... Theirs and the wrong one and they don't usually let the truth get in the way of their opinions.
Just let them get on with it and where you can put them right. They might not listen but at least you tried
We just don't count over here in Aus. It's either walking or motorbikes. Mountain biking here is catered for by getting a grader in and making a 6m tow path through the trees where there was an excellent single track.
Thankfully, when it rains it trashes the paths (until they grade again, making thr tracks below ground level) so trails soon get interesting again.
Strange as it is, I actually benefit from the motorbikes, they keep the trails open for me (and it seems to be just about me!).
Thankfully though this is all so remote from most walkers that it's never an issue.
Inner city parks suffer from bans etc though.
[/sunshine coast - Aus]
Come on get some persepctive. He rants about a young Highland Coo having just been born.
He's just opinionated, just as well no one one here is.
He has a point.
Put yourself in his shoes...he enjoys a walk in the countryside, he wants it to be as unspoiled as possible. Relatively speaking groups of blokes on bikes rattling along is an annoyance.
Car drivers moan about trucks, cyclist moan about cars and walkers moan about cyclist and so on.
"as it maintains a constant contact with the ground surely it is causing less erosion. in much the same way that if you suffer with knee/joint problems you're better off cycling or swimming than jogging, less impact = less damage."
+1
Compared with the 'cycle' of a walkers boot leaving/impacting the ground.
Helvellyn was in the Lakes the last time I looked. 🙂
Good point, well made 🙂
tyres may cause less of a 'dent' in the ground due to lower pressure per sq inch but, because they leave a groove, water then tends to settle in there and then flow downhill - this leads to soil erosion far more than walkers footprints. You then add braking erosion before obstacles and I can see why a lot of walkers think cyclists cause all the erosion.
Plus tyre marks are far more visible than footsteps because they are continuous.
tyres may cause less of a 'dent' in the ground due to lower pressure per sq inch but, because they leave a groove, water then tends to settle in there and then flow downhill - this leads to soil erosion far more than walkers footprints.
Not true on steep ground though, where walkers kick little steps into the ground every time - pretty sure there was some research which showed this.
Why don't we settle this debate by saying that bikes and feet both cause erosion.
TandemJeremy - MemberOn erosion - my opinion from what I have seen -[b] it depends on the terrain but [/b]one MTBer causes more erosion than 1 walker on the whole.
I have seen paths ruined by MTBers I have seen paths ruined by walkers Horses are the worst and [b]inconsiderate people are bad for it no matter their transport [/b]but all other things being equal MTBs cause more erosion than walkers.
[b]The answer is to be responsible and enjoy your access responsibly [/b]
