I don't want to drag up an old thread, but just to respond to a couple of the above things directed at points made earlier…

a lot of the time when we're not on recognised ROWs for bikes we never see anyone… and if they object we never know about it.

That's kind of the point, if there is a problem, you're not the one there to deal with it.

the trouble with asking for permission is that it may be withheld

Or, the only reason you are not looking for constructive means of access is because you think (or rather fear) that you will not get your own way. It's like putting your fingers in your ears and screaming “I can't hear you”.

Oh and nice posts cinnamon_girl.

Or, the only reason you are not looking for constructive means of access is because you think (or rather fear) that you will not get your own way.

I just don't agree that land ownership implies exclusive access. The owner has a limited right to occupy and exploit the resources of the land, but it's still all of our country. The only thing I fear when out riding is my own lack of coordination and the ensuing danger.

In the South we have different needs to those who ride in National Parks, for example. We have far too many people which naturally puts pressure on the existing rights of way network. Much of it is in private ownership although some have permissive rights of way but these can be taken away. This is where joined-up thinking comes in.

On the positive side we do have some counties, ie Hampshire, who have waymarked trails that can be navigated alongside the route packs they sell. The downside is that the trails are not maintained from year to year and are getting pretty difficult to ride, chest-high vegetation anyone?

Our rights of way are unique, have been used for centuries by an assortment of tribes/people/animals, and consequently our mapping is like an historical document. It's fascinating 🙂

Time to come back into this one I think. Firstly, I'm all for responsible cheeky riding. That's riding where you know you won't cause conflict, won't do undue damage to the trail, and won't jeopardise access. For me that means only straying off-piste locally (where I know the area), or under the guidance of someone I trust (where they know the area). I wouldn't dream of picking a footpath from a map and just riding it without any sort of local knowledge on its 'status'.

Secondly, I don't see much evidence that either CTC or IMBA are, or have been, actively working for mountain bike access. I know the trail building group I'm a member of has been consulted in the past. I'm a member of the North York Moors Local Access Forum – LAFs are the primary means by which ROW users can influence access, yet there appear to be very few mountain bikers involved. I think I'm the only mountain bike 'specific' LAF member in any of the three North Yorks LAFs (NYM, Dales and NY itself). Considering the vast tracts of prime riding in these areas that's a shame. And it's a particular shame when getting mountain bikers and cyclists represented on LAFs is a declared policy of both CTC and IMBA.

If you want to influence access in your area you should seriously look at who's on your LAF and whether you could be there sticking your oar in for mountain bikers. I think many of you would be surprised how many horse riders and walkers etc are perfectly happy to work for access alongside mountain bikers – many of them do look old and crusty, but they don't necessarily think like that 😉

Interesting post jonathan. I have seen mention of these Local Access Forums but the one thing that holds me back from getting involved is my perceived aggro from other trail users! I would also consider myself old and crusty but that could work to my advantage 🙂

I would suspect you have your work cut out covering such a large area. How much of your time do you dedicate to this? Has it been successful?

Will check out my Local Access forum in the meantime.

Thank you for your reply.

jonathan – just done a bit of investigating and the reps from cycling are … surprise surprise … CTC members who use cycle paths and disused railway lines 🙄

So … whilst I feel passionate about rights of way, I don't want to waste my time banging my head against a brick wall. Shall sleep on it!!

I don't see much evidence that either CTC or IMBA are, or have been, actively working for mountain bike access.

Um, you know those bridleways you like to ride on? CTC won the legal right for cyclists to use them back in the 1960s. Think how many cheeky trails you'd need without that.

Actually, I think you'll find it was a recommendation of the Gosling report, which recommended allowing cycling footpaths as well, and that CTC complained that they had not been fully consulted on the legislation prior to the drafting of the law.

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1968/apr/09/riding-of-pedal-bicycles-on-footpaths

Local Access Forum

I've just written to the chair of the Cumbria one to see if I can get in 🙂

As a keen "outdoors person" its interesting that an OS map absolves any miss-guidance regarding the information as too whats on the map, as to whats actually on the ground!!… and I quote

"The Representation on this map of any other road,track or path is NO evidence of the existence of a right of way"

I can think of quite a few sign posts in the Lakes that indicate a footpath on one end and Bridleway at the other! 🙄

I am sure sfb will back me on this 😉

Lots of paths/tracks we use on a Tuesday night ride are full width lanes that are more like roads,but actually marked as footpaths on the map,I think theres a vast network of unrecorded, or wrongly recorded ROW in the national parks,hopefully the user groups,like LARA, NPA, and LAFF will recognise this in the future. ❓

Many of the paths I frequently ride are used by local walkers farmers and Landowners,I think theres a good tolerance to all user groups generally as long as you ride responsibly/courtiously and after 6 pm. 😉

Good for you Simon.

Thanks for that Hansard link, zulu – never seen that debate before. Some interesting stuff in there, along with lots of prejudice and entrenched views (which makes me wonder how we ever managed to even get rights on bridleways).

However in amongst all that lot is a cheeky trails charter. The Honorable Member for Torrington, Mr Peter Mills says: "I am glad that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said that he would consider this matter again. I am not happy about the Clause. I do not see why there need be any legislation at all on this matter. Surely this is a matter of common sense and courtesy. People in the countryside know that one can ride a bicycle on certain footpaths and that one cannot do so on others. I do not believe that there is any need for legislation on this point." I reckon that's the definitive answer – an MP said cheeky trails were OK in a commons debate on the matter.

Agreed that the link does make interesting reading. Particularly from the chap who pointed out

a bicycle is a dangerous object to leave in a field full of stock.

WTF!

Also from the same guy

Cycling along a path with a thin covering of grass will soon remove the grass, whereas use by pedestrians will not remove it.

Right, so what you're saying is a footpath, despite the name, is not actually eroded, and therefore created, by the passage of feet…

nice one sfb 😉

Nice one simon. We have a mountain biker on the LAF for the peak park now, too.