Yes there are laws and legislation but why would any land owner or quango land manage org want the risk?
Even if they win which isn’t ever a forgone conclusion they still had to go to court and defend allowing people on their land.
Charities are being threatened by these snowflakes … saying how they will be expert witnesses again and make sure they get sued for millions.
Citation needed.
How many people / organisations / charities have actually been sued by someone falling off? How many have tried to sue MTBers for using the land? I mean, I don't have the figures either but it has to be vanishingly small surely?
There was the famous case of the trail guide being sued when a client died on BKB in the Surrey Hills, I remember that one.
It’s exactly what is happening… snowflakes making threats about suing landowners.
Examples? Alongside likelihood of it ever actually happening?
crazy-legs
Citation needed.
How many people / organisations / charities have actually been sued by someone falling off? How many have tried to sue MTBers for using the land? I mean, I don’t have the figures either but it has to be vanishingly small surely?There was the famous case of the trail guide being sued when a client died on BKB in the Surrey Hills, I remember that one.
It's in the Surrey Hills MTB FB group amongst other places... someone claiming to have been an expert witness on the case you mentioned threatening Friends of Hurtwood and the trail builders personally (we know who you are) threats. He's claiming to have written to Mark Beaumont (aka friends of hurtwood) threatening him as well.
It should be a simple open and shut "you chose to ride an MTB .. you got injured" (in this case badly)...
(one thread is under a post by Simon Light (who I can mention since he isn't going to sue me) )
I say claiming because it doesn't actually matter if this snowflake is genuinely the expert witness.. the threat is being sued for millions against a charity.
Examples? Alongside likelihood of it ever actually happening?
It doesn't need to be likely for the likes of the MOD/Crown Estates etc. to use it as an excuse or to scare otherwise generous landowners and charities.
Growth or no growth you're going to get belters and barrackroom lawyers threatening to sue. It's inescapable because some people are ****ing idiots and they also ride bikes.
You can't mitigate for all eventualities, and much like you're saying riders have to suck it up in regards to partaking in a hobby that carries a degree of inherent physical risk, the same goes for trail associations in regards to people having a pop at them. When you build trails, fight for access the risk is others are going to disagree, or look to hold you or landowners responsible for unfavourable outcomes.
You act like hard-core riders are virtuous and accept the risks without question. Which you and I both know is utter bollocks.
@stevextc.
So you're saying because of one case that newcomers shouldn't be encouraged in to MTB?
Bizarre attitude.
Do you think folks that were riding before you started had the same attitude towards you?
How were they to know you weren't a "snowflake"?
I used to have a mate that showed the same attitude back in the mid 80's.
Our riding group were all ex MX/Enduro riders who got into MTB from the beginning.
Said ex mate had the same "snowflake" attitude to anyone else we came across while riding that hadn't grown up riding MX and in his mind didn't belong...
It was pretty embarrassing TBH and most of us stopped riding with him because of it.
So you’re saying because of one case that newcomers shouldn’t be encouraged in to MTB?
No I'm saying we absolutely shouldn't try and "reframe MTB" as something you aren't going to get hurt/cold/wet/hot...because then it sets unrealistic expectations.
Planting the idea that it's "safe in a snowflake sense" is only going to BOTH attract people who are going to look for someone to sue when it turns out it's MTB and provide a backdrop of expectation for courts
There is a real chance (near certainty) someone (sooner or later) gets hurt on any trail whatever you do.
Sadly the way English and Welsh law works is through case law... so all it takes is one case not that is the concern of Crown Estates or MOD, they just want an excuse to bypass their obligation in public access.
However look wider at places like Fleet dirt jumps... Hart council took a punt and did something incredible (IMHO).
Yes people get hurt.. of course people get hurt and they should EXPECT to get hurt sooner or later.
If MTB is reframed into "safe for snowflakes" then people will be arguing that the council should have made it "safe", you see this in children's playgrounds where council's close them in case a child has a minor injury or they put that foam stuff down.
So you’re saying because of one case that newcomers shouldn’t be encouraged in to MTB?
No I’m saying we absolutely shouldn’t try and “reframe MTB”
But you said this
I don’t want to GROW it
Sounds like you don't want to welcome new people to MTB
TBH your constant over use of one phrase makes you sound like someone that's not worth listening to anyway.
as someone who’s surfed in this country for the best part of 30yrs, that’s a terrible idea.
Until it gets big, it’s so busy at any good spot from dawn til dusk. Forecasting is so good that an app tells you where to be and when. Wetsuits are so good the depths of winter aren’t a challenge in hypothermia management. All the things are in place to open it up to the masses. Lots of people have made a lot of money. It’s not improved the surf.
The biggest danger in surfing now isn’t the waves, it’s other people.
is quite funny when the post immediately above yours is:
I don’t want to GROW it .. more people = more snowflakes = more people who sue if someone didn’t sweep the trails for them and they have a tumble = less trails and sanitized trails.
Total crock o shite.
Fwiw, the few times I surfed this year - a couple of beaches in Gower - it was a lot quieter than when I started about 20 years ago. I may have been lucky, though. 😀
You're missing my point though, I think. I meant we should be aiming towards the same attitude as surfing. It's accessible, easy to get into for any age or sex or colour and seen as a bit of an adventure if you don't live surrounded by surfers, like I do. Compared to the elitist, once annually in an expensive destination thing that is skiing, it's a far better comparison.
It’s in the Surrey Hills MTB FB group
I bet that attracts some proper FB bile, Mr Vanderham rivalling levels. Surrey Hills were a great example of how we're our own worst enemy, all those diggers doing whatever they liked for so long.
Sounds like you don’t want to welcome new people to MTB
MTB just doesn't need more snowflakes.... in fact neither does the whole country.
TBH your constant over use of one phrase makes you sound like someone that’s not worth listening to anyway.
Sadly the swear filter probably won't met me describe the scum properly..
If MTB is reframed into “safe for snowflakes” then people will be arguing that the council should have made it “safe”, you see this in children’s playgrounds where council’s close them in case a child has a minor injury or they put that foam stuff down.
I just don't believe this - I know it's all very popular to go on about "elf'n'safety gorn mad!" but humans put themselves and others at risk every day in perfectly normal activities. Driving. Pretty much any form of exercise. Flying. DIY...
Some of those things are more heavily regulated and insured than others but there's a framework in place to minimise risk and to compensate if/when things do go wrong.
No-one is going round suing landowners left, right and centre. There might be very occasional threats to do so which could be sorted quickly via a good loud "**** off!" because honestly, it is never* going to get to that stage.
*maybe not "never" but so statistically unlikely as to be covered by that description.
There’s laws that cover all that stuff. You can’t sue simply because you fell off. There’s a test of ‘reasonable forseeability’ and it can be applied on both sides.
If some forms of MTB were a more popular and mainstream thing we’d be less of a weird minority and have more of a voice to help with access and landowners seeing sense or reason in what the law actually means for them, more people drowning out the odd whinger, all in all we’d have more people enjoying more trails, more businesses serving people at those places, etc.
And also absolutely everything that @jameso said ^^
Sadly the swear filter probably won’t met me describe the scum properly..
Seriously dude. If a discussion about what we call "mountain biking" is making you this angry, maybe it's time you took up another hobby.
Surrey Hills were a great example of how we’re our own worst enemy, all those diggers doing whatever they liked for so long.
Indeed - not content with being essentially allowed to ride our bikes wherever we liked, our community decided to start digging holes, cutting down trees, building jumps and generally acting like *****
scotroutes
Seriously dude. If a discussion about what we call “mountain biking” is making you this angry, maybe it’s time you took up another hobby.
It's not a discussion about what we call mountain biking, it's a discussion about changing what we call mountain biking, specifically to attract people that don't like the idea of mountain biking.
It's like doing touch rugby to attract people who don't like contact sports.... when there are numerous non contact sports they can just go and do. Not that basket ball is intrinsically "safer" than rugby... people still break ankles and wrists because well... that's life.
The problem or problems is/are it is based on a lie if people are led to believe they are partaking in some activity they won't get a few minor injuries, cold, wet or sweaty in summer.
No matter what you do send 1000 people of any skill level down a groomed green run 1000 times and someone will have an accident. It's then
a) How they react (I got told, expect etc. this is a "safe" activity)
b) How courts react (what expectations they had)
c) How trail associations, landowners etc. fear the courts might react.
The recent furore over a couple of avoidable tiny gap jumps on private land managed by a charity shows that the trail associations can be bullied into focussing on c
jameso
Surrey Hills were a great example of how we’re our own worst enemy, all those diggers doing whatever they liked for so long.
No-one is forcing ANYONE to ride features.... if someone doesn't like it ride slow and push/ride around.
Who do you think the official diggers need to justify themselves to anyway?
If you didn't ride it before and you don't like risking a bit of a tumble ride it slowly first BECAUSE that's MTB.. there might be a rock or log fallen on the trail BECAUSE that's MTB... They are only a bike length and case friendly anyway so no-one is going to injure themselves worse than just coming off on a corner and less than running into a tree.
Sadly it may knock a second off some strava times...
it’s become a discussion about changing what [s]we[/s] I call mountain biking,
FTFY. As has been pointed out numerous times already, it's only you that has adopted some sort of gatekeeping role. The rest of us are happy that mountain biking is basically just riding a mountain bike, wherever that is.
I’d concede, he’ll batter you with word count.
I’d concede, he’ll batter you with word count.
Dunno about batter, more like bore. But that's what happens when in lieu of an actual personality, people transplant their hobbies.
Thankfully he's just one voice shouting into a void.
Something, something, snowflakes, simps and the such like.
I’d concede, he’ll batter you with word count.
What keyboard for....
There is of course a solid argument for more MTBers...
eventually, you reach a point where the Forest Rangers, Planning Officers, Council Executives, Lawyers, Judges, Politicians, Media Magnates and Investment Bankers are all mountain bikers themselves, so we basically become a bit like the Freemasons (although of course, less dangerous overall)
No-one is forcing ANYONE to ride features…. if someone doesn’t like it ride slow and push/ride around.
Who do you think the official diggers need to justify themselves to anyway?
I wasn't talking about the diggers who have permission now, or anyone being forced to ride things.
Trails for all and rule #1. Over and out.
FTFY. As has been pointed out numerous times already, it’s only you that has adopted some sort of gatekeeping role. The rest of us are happy that mountain biking is basically just riding a mountain bike, wherever that is.
The only gate keeping is that people need to accept they will probably have a few minor injuries.
You and others are the ones lying to them
Are you being paid to LIE or are you doing it for fun?
stevextc You are a very angry person. It might be useful if you listened to other peoples views rather than raving about "snowflakes". There are many uses of mountain bikes and you don't have exclusive rights to say how people enjoy cycling. I don't personally think mountain biking involves building and riding over jumps in the woods but I accept that other people do.
I don't think building jumps with pits behind them and leaving random pits near footpaths is going to win many friends, especially when you damage the roots of established large beech trees to get the earth to build ramps.
Bruce
Of course I'm angry when people want to kill one of the few remaining leisure activities for people who accept a bit of risk of minor injury with a goal of changing it so that it sounds more attractive to people who otherwise wouldn't be interested by lying to them about the risks.
Obviously manufacturers want to sell more bikes.. and they can't spread lies people won't have a few injuries and even deaths themselves or they will be sued for millions so they pay others to lie.
The biggest lie in health and safety is "all accidents are preventable" which really means is "someone is to blame" if someone has an accident. If you get electrocuted because your house is hit by a freak lightning strike then health and safety want to find WHO to blame... WHO can be sued and how can they make money out of your injury/death.
People in the UK seem to just go along with this just like people think HR is there to protect the employees... or HSSE is there to protect the employees.
The whole idea of "if you ride inside your capabilities you won't get hurt" is a lie.
There are 1001 scenarios where shit just happens and no-one is to blame unless we give an expectation of something being "UK snowflake safe".
First off despite the NHS describing fractures as minor injuries some people can't accept this... you can break a wrist or something just falling off a stationary bike if you have bad luck.. you can get a puncture and lose control ... there are 101 ways you can have a minor injury where no-one is REALLY at fault so long as you accept the premise that MTB (or other activities) carry inherent risk AND someone intrinsically ACCEPTS that risk.
As someone pointed out earlier humans are poor at assessing risks but this isn't quite what it seems because the UK population is particularly poor at assessing certain types of risk because it is being engineered out of the population.
It might be useful if you listened to other peoples views
https://rethinkingchildhood.com/no-fear/
You can download for free, why not read it and open yourself up to other views?
I'll lift a quote from Malmo city
Although we can’t avoid accidents, where there is a problem that we have known about but not done anything about then the municipality is responsible.
But if somebody falls and breaks an arm that is just something that happens. Of course it worries us but there is always a risk when you play and move your body…. You are there at your own risk.’
This is about children's playgrounds... the same SHOULD apply implicitly to MTB or any form of off-road cycling including skateparks, bmx tracks etc.. but with trails what does "where there is a problem that we have known about" even mean. Do people have some right to have trails walked by someone every morning and the trail closed if a loose rock is found or its a bit icy or should people be expected to deal with that and if they fall off deal with it?
you don’t have exclusive rights to say how people enjoy cycling
People can do what they want until it starts affecting what others are allowed to do by making threats to others who don't agree with their assessment of risks.
I don’t personally think mountain biking involves building and riding over jumps in the woods but I accept that other people do.
For the n'th time, no-one is forcing you or anyone to build jumps or ride trails with jumps..
If we reframe MTB such that people have "a reasonable expectation" to not get "injured" if they "ride within their capability" and the courts have that expectation (that a reasonable person) as well we end up someone blowing a front tyre and OTB looking to sue... and doubtless a bottom feeder lawyer looking to make money and pay some expert witnesses to say how it's the landowners fault for having a sharp rock or the tyre manufacturer or basically ANYONE except bad luck???
It's also completely irrelevant in terms of "reframing MTB" to be "not dangerous", if anything it's actively harmful to pretend jumps are more dangerous than any other trail riding just because it's not your idea of MTB because that gives the idea that MTB is otherwise going to be an injury free activity.
Holy ****.
**** me is he still banging on about this.😂
Jeebus is this one still rumbling?
Have we fixed anything yet?
singlespeedstu
**** me is he still banging on about this
It needs to be stopped ... whilst we are still allowed to MTB
there is sod all point complaining later when the trails get closed down.
It needs to be stopped … whilst we are still allowed to MTB
there is sod all point complaining later when the trails get closed down.
Who the **** is going to be "closing down" trails and public rights of way?!
You've got wildly the wrong end of the stick on this, the original article was about reframing MTB from being hardcore / gnarr / rad / sick / to being FUN. Like skiiing or snowboarding which are marketed and accepted that way (alongside the obviously very skilful rad sick DH ski racers etc...)
There is (obviously) a risk of injury or death in skiing and resorts do things like grading the trails, mandating ski helmets, having first aid provision etc to mitigate that as far as resonably possible but no-one goes on about closing the slopes or suing Val d'Isere or Chill Factore just cos a few dozen people a year break arms and legs. Most people go on a skiing holiday and have FUN. Most people who are into MTBing go MTBing and have FUN. The challenge (as per the article - you [b]did[/b] read the article, yes?) is just getting more people to come along and have fun rather than viewing it as only an activity that the fearless hardcore superfit can do. Same as they do when they go skiing or try out any other activity sport on holiday.
That is what the article is about, not removing all known risk for ever and finding someone to sue.
🙄
F*ck me that was a rough read and I had to skip some particularly tedious bits. Usually when the word snowflake was uttered, because frankly that complete lack of understanding means pretty much every other point is probably not worth wasting brainpower on.
But I'm going to type something anyway. I will probably regret this, but it is a point of view.
There is a set of woods near me that, during lockdown, had some epic trails constructed. Bikepark red level trails but seriously well built. They got popular, they got well known. Many mountain bikers visited, myself included. A few got hurt, myself not included. See I ride within limits I have learned from a few accidents. I'm an adult and I can make informed decisions about my safety
Problem comes when the teenagers who were old enough to go out on bikes unsupervised but not 'adults' found them. Naturally most of them learned stuff as the trials were built, but what about their friend who just got a Carrera for his birthday and wants to do jumps with his mates. He follows the train down the trail, runs out of ability way before he runs out of speed and smacks into a tree. Things get broken, some would call them a minor injury as nothing was serious enough to threaten his life.
His parents would disagree. They had no idea that such huge jumps exist within such easy reach of an urban area and are understandably angry that they now have to deal with a son who cannot walk and struggles to do *anything* for the next couple of months. They decide to contact the landowner as these are public woods. The landowner was unaware of the trails*, and absolutely did not conset to their construction, and thereofre the only way they can proceed is to have the trails flattened.
* They weren't - but they do turn a blind eye to most things. But when faced with potential litigation from an upset parent they will do what they have to.
So what should be done differently in this (likely very common) scenario?
(TL:DR Adults can asses risk better than kids)
Who the **** is going to be “closing down” trails
It's already happening (right now) and the excuse is "people might get hurt and we would be liable".
The MOD erected lots of illegal fencing in lockdown to keep people off land for which it must maintain public access when not in use. Crown Estate periodically bulldozes trails at Swinley and the excuse is "people might get hurt and we would be liable"
These are just excuses to land grab but even with the current "public image" a reasonable person (as in legal term) would still tend towards saying when someone climbs on an MTB they are accepting the risk.
If we work backwards from this and if the public perception changes then a "reasonable person" might expect if people are mountain biking then things should be made "safe".
and public rights of way?!
You can't close rights of way ... however it illustrates what happens when people expect to be "safe".
Landowners end up having to remove things that people could hurt themselves on if they try hard enough.
Our local council closed part of a footpath on common land because a handrail was broken over a bridge... it's not a very high bridge and you'd need to throw yourself off deliberately but someone complained it was dangerous. I have no issue them actually repairing stuff.. but the point here was it was closed (for several (2-3?) years) until it was "made safe". (I'd bet the person who complained just wanted it repairing... and had they known it was just going to be closed for 2-3 years instead they'd probably not have bothered. )
but no-one goes on about closing the slopes or suing Val d’Isere
Val d'Isere is in France ...
France (or the rest of Europe) are not crippled by the same risk averse culture that permeates the UK.
^^See the book I linked^^
seriousrikk
His parents would disagree. They had no idea that such huge jumps exist within such easy reach of an urban area and are understandably angry that they now have to deal with a son who cannot walk and struggles to do *anything* for the next couple of months. They decide to contact the landowner as these are public woods. The landowner was unaware of the trails*, and absolutely did not conset to their construction, and thereofre the only way they can proceed is to have the trails flattened.
* They weren’t – but they do turn a blind eye to most things. But when faced with potential litigation from an upset parent they will do what they have to.
So what should be done differently in this (likely very common) scenario?
The parents could get told he was MTBing.. minor injuries happen.
Check out Fleet dirt jumps, council run. Lots of accidents, broken bones etc. lots of learning experiences at your own risk.
There is nothing understandable about them being angry that jumps were allowed to exist close to an urban area.
They could have injured themselves lots of ways... it happens. They could have been in a skatepark or .. well just being a kid. Also you are assuming they didn't realise the risk and just do it anyway.
However as you say the landowner was really left with no real choice and bulldozed the trails rather than face litigation .. because win or lose it's easier to bulldoze.
myself not included. See I ride within limits I have learned from a few accidents.
Erm, well yep.... this is how we actually learn to access risks. (or most of the rest of the world does)
Sorry the doc I linked is 98 pages but see how the rest of the world do it.
Anyone else looking forward to @stwhannah writing another article based on all the replies? 😀
She's too busy pulling her hair out at how the thread went
there is sod all point complaining later when the trails get closed down.
**** all chance of that happening round here.
Maybe move😜
‘Mountain biking’
The act of riding a mountain bike.
Happy?
Happy?
Seems to be very unhappy from the amount of typing that he does.
#typelessridemore.
Anyone else looking forward to @stwhannah writing another article based on all the replies? 😀
She moved onto the 'trail pot' one next, TBF these articles are clearly asking some thought provoking questions that we as a collective are sort of managing to make an utter mess of discussing/debating in a constructive fashion (I'm as guilty as anyone). We fell at the first hurdle with this one as we don't seem to be able to agree what mountain biking even is between us.
But I still welcome the discussions, it's important, mountain biking today isn't the same thing it was twenty odd years ago, and that was already pretty removed from what it was when I first encountered it I the late 80s so actually considering where it should go over the next quarter of a century or so is probably a pertinent question these days...
**** all chance of that happening round here.
Weird because then seriousrikk posted that the landowner was threatened by some risk averse ****wits and bulldozed the trails ???
Any landowner who allows MTB is going to do the same when snowflakes start threatening legal action unless the snowflakes are fined and told to STFU or go to prison
What is it makes people think they can tell people what they are allowed or not allowed to do because they decide it's too risky ???
[url= https://i.postimg.cc/4NYR0kXB/SQLF.gi f" target="_blank">https://i.postimg.cc/4NYR0kXB/SQLF.gi f"/> [/img][/url]
Isn't it more... ?
Ad nauseam...
