- This topic has 272 replies, 84 voices, and was last updated 13 years ago by foxyrider.
-
cheeky trails
-
TandemJeremyFree Member
SFB – I appreciate your point but surely you can see that others strongly disagree? You are damaging the relationships between walkers and riders by your actions as many have said.
I mention the Scottish access code as it is held up as an exemplar of good practices – and some of what you do would clearly breach it.
I think you suffer from wanting you "rights" but not wanting to take on your responsibilities. same as your attitude to the Mountain rescue –
simonfbarnesFree MemberI appreciate your point but surely you can see that others strongly disagree?
as is their right
You are damaging the relationships between walkers and riders by your actions as many have said.
I find this at best unproven. Most of the walkers I see are friendly, wherever we are.
and some of what you do would clearly breach it.
but you are not the arbitrator
I think you suffer from wanting you "rights" but not wanting to take on your responsibilities. same as your attitude to the Mountain rescue
I see my responsibility as looking after the riders I'm with and making sure they have as much fun as possible, not enforcing poorly defined access conventions. A few bikes passing through is really a very minor event, and as far as I can tell usually it's only other mountain bikers who make a fuss about it.
crazy-legsFull MemberThere's a difference TJ between what you're supposing the Bogtrotters do (let's go out and ride wherever we like and screw the consequences) which I'll admit is how SFB is coming across and their actual attitude which is "let's go out and have fun, treat others as we like to be treated and just enjoy the biking"
I've only ever been riding with them on a few occasions (big group rides are not normally my thing) but there's been very few complaints other than on here when he's posted pics of the rides. In that respect I think MTBers are just as selfish as walkers sometimes. Walkers want FP's to themselves, MTBers want their local FP's to themselves – they don't generally publicise it and with good reason as Dave says in his article.
In fact, in spite of vast amounts of photographic evidence, the ride reports and the threads on here, no action was ever taken by the authorities on SFB's "trespass" on Stanage Edge.
Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middling Edition
Latest Singletrack VideosFresh Goods Friday 696: The Middlin...simonfbarnesFree MemberI've only ever been riding with them on a few occasions
just as well considering your last outing :o)
no action was ever taken by the authorities on SFB's "trespass" on Stanage Edge.
and for that matter I wasn't involved in the choice of route 🙂
crazy-legsFull MemberI think you suffer from wanting you "rights" but not wanting to take on your responsibilities. same as your attitude to the Mountain rescue –
TJ, I've had 2 serious accidents in all my many years of cycling. Both required a heli evacuation. That's required. Not "I wanted a heli evacuation", it was needed.
Is my 100% record selfish? Do I have the wrong attitude?Just curious like…
MKCHRISFree MemberJeez!
Lovely day out there-I'll be off exploring some new riding via a pub.
Maybe some footpaths involved….hope some of you can get out later and do the sameMattie_HFree MemberIs there any chance this thread could get back on track rather than degenerating into a clash-of-the-egos? It was starting to get interesting until it became all about SFB et al
simonfbarnesFree MemberIt was starting to get interesting until it became all about SFB et al
I agree.
TandemJeremyFree MemberCrazy legs – no – or not necessarily – it depends on whether you were being reckless ( did not appear to be so in the recent one)
However on the thread where I questioned SFB over the use of Mountain rescue he stated
Mountain rescue and the air ambulance service (also a charity) enable us to take risks in the countryside in the knowledge that help will be given if needed,
Now that to me is totally inappropriate and is not taking responsibility for his own actions.
Edric64Free MemberLets get it straight Cheeky = illegal calling it something else doesn't change what it is.Don't ride footpaths because you piss peopre off, how hard is that to comprehend? Ride on boats rupps and bridleways .That's assuming you can read an os map .Trust me it's not hard!
crazy-legsFull MemberI agree too.
Dave has it right in the article IMHO.
The Rules are an excellent starting point, I don't really think (IMHO) there's any real need to get it more formal since it invariably results in arguments, NIMBY's etc. Until MTBing actually gets itself organised and gets a voice with the same amount of clout as, say, the Ramblers or the British Horse Society then nothing is going to happen. You've got Sustrans, CTC, British Cycling, IMBA all with their own slightly different agenda (cycling as transport, cycling as fun, MTB racing etc) and none of them lobbying effectively for a change in the law – it needs ONE voice with a common aim.IMHO.
crazy-legsFull MemberDon't ride footpaths because you piss peopre off, how hard is that to comprehend?
Is that really true though?! Hell, some people are pissed off if you ride BW's, RUPP's etc. There are some BW's in the Lakes and Peaks that I won't ride in peak times cos it's just not worth it, they're rammed with walkers. Much better to go and find a quiet FP miles from anywhere with no-one on it and ride that. Spread people out = LESS conflict, not more!
simonfbarnesFree MemberDon't ride footpaths because you piss peopre off, how hard is that to comprehend?
sounds like a good reason for doing it…
I see pissing off pissable-off people as a vocationThat's assuming you can read an os map
how else would we find all those "interesting" trails ?
Edric64Free MemberIt's people with that attitude that make me wish the hills were empty like they were 25 years ago before mountain biking became a trendy way to show off your wealth
ellipticFree MemberI see pissing off pissable-off people as a vocation
Yes, we'd noticed that 🙄
The trouble is, after you've come and gone leaving a trail of pissed-off people behind you, some of those people may have to be placated to stop it rebounding on the rest of us.
Not that you care, because you've come and gone.
Eg. the Stoodley Pike example upthread.
TrimixFree MemberWhatever you do you will find someone who wont like it. So do it with that in mind, but do it sensitivly and you will only piss off a minority. That minority wont be swayed by any rational reasoing, they are always pissed off.
Ride on by with a polite wave. Dont go rocking the boat, our actions as individuals do actually affect the rest of the mountain biking community. But bear in mind its only a small minority who will ever be bothered that your on a FP.
Very small numbers of riders can often go on by un-noticed. Big groups will annoy people. That seems plain common sence. Legal or not. Dont swim up hill.
Look at the voluntary agreement on Snowdon of a good example of give and take + sensitivity = access for both walkers and riders. Of course, its a BW, but being rational and sensitive means a we can still ride it without mowing down walkers and getting banned.
clubberFree Memberlike they were 25 years ago before mountain biking became a trendy way to show off your wealth
That sounds like you have a rather big chip on your shoulder…
Edric64Free MemberNo there are just to many go getters with a bad attitude riding around who think they can act the way they do in the office out in the hills
clubberFree MemberThere have always been **** riding mtbs. It's just that as mtbing's become more popular there are numerically more of them about.
thomthumbFree MemberNo there are just to many go getters with a bad attitude riding around who think they can act the way they do in the office out in the hills
that is definitely SFB!! lol.
miketuallyFree MemberLets get it straight Cheeky = illegal calling it something else doesn't change what it is.
But it's not illegal… I think you need to do a little light reading.
norbert-colonFull MemberAs a sometime lurker and occasional poster on here, I do find this debate interesting…
I think the whole thing about is it legal or not legal isn't really that relevant…
I must admit that when I first started biking off road, (some time ago now as I am an ole git) I used to go anywhere because nobody seemed to care… then it seemed to become unacceptable to ride anywhere other than a bridleway BOAT etc. as the sport became more popular and there were more and more folks out there, so I stuck with those routes.
The whole concept of a 'cheeky trail' is somewhat new to me, since I started coming on here. I just try and keep to allowed routes (in the main, ahem) and I thought that was what everyone did until I found out otherwise.
I agree that there are always people who get pissed off, and will do whatever you do, but surely we shouldn't be going out of our way to piss them off and thus create another anti-biking biggot for the future?
I am a mountain biker, a walker, a runner and a dog owner all of which can end up in confrontation, from time to time, with other folks out there who feel it is their right to do what they want and not have to co-exist with other people. We do have to expect that whatever we do out there, there will always be somebody who doesn't like it…
Surely antagonising folks is just going to do more harm than good in the longer term? or am I just missing the point? (wouldn't be the first time)
Norb
TheBrickFree Membersimonfbarnes – Member
For that matter, most of the rides I lead only have a dozen riders or lessA group of 12 is not a small group and hardly being sensitive to other users. That's quite a group!
Edric64Free MemberNo I am not I just phoned Somerset County Coucil rights of way team .It is illegal to cycle on public footpaths and you are open to civil prosecution by the land owner for tresspass.The council could get involved if the path is damaged by your actions.
miketuallyFree MemberNo I am not I just phoned Somerset County Coucil rights of way team .It is illegal to cycle on public footpaths and you are open to civil prosecution by the land owner for tresspass.The council could get involved if the path is damaged by your actions.
Yes you are. And so are they.
The reason it's civil prosecution is because it's not a criminal matter. Because it's not illegal.
Edric64Free MemberThe word illegal was used to me by the council not just by me to back up my earlier comment.Also if it's ok to ride footpaths can I put my tent on your front garden unannounced or would that be different?
crazy-legsFull MemberYou didn't really expect the *council* to know what they were talking about did you?!
There's several links in the thread about the actual legal definitions of it, it's one of those things that is very poorly understood by almost everyone and as a result there's a huge amount of false info been propagated over the years.
Edric64Free MemberSo fxck everyone especially farmers and ride what we like then? How arrogant can you get?
miketuallyFree MemberSo fxck everyone especially farmers and ride what we like then? How arrogant can you get?
You've not read the article, have you?
There are bridleways which it would be irresponsible to ride after heavy rain, while a parallel footpath could be responsibly ridden. Responsibility and "legality" are not the same thing.
nockmeisterFree MemberAnd so the same rider that rides FP's knowing that it's wrong, is going to turn back cause might cause errosion….riiiight
miketuallyFree MemberAnd so the same rider that rides FP's knowing that it's wrong, is going to turn back cause might cause errosion….riiiight
If they have the choice between a boggy bridleway and a dry footpath? I think they probably would.
simonfbarnesFree MemberThe trouble is, after you've come and gone leaving a trail of pissed-off people behind you,
when I said that, I meant people on here. I'm the soul of cheerful politeness on the trails :o)
thomthumbFree MemberThe word illegal was used to me by the council not just by me to back up my earlier comment.Also if it's ok to ride footpaths can I put my tent on your front garden unannounced or would that be different?
it's not illegal; quite simply they are wrong.
no it wouldn't be different, in the eyes of the law, it would be trespass; ie not illegal.
however i think the point that needs to be made that it is different – some mountain bikes travelling a long a FP is quite different to gypsies setting up camp between the acacia and the birdtable!
norbert-colonFull MemberHow many folk on here would actually not ride track (legal or otherwise) if they thought they might make a mess of it? I'm not sure anyone is going to be THAT responsible are they?
Let's not kid ourselves here, we're after more fun first and if that helps the environment second then so be it?
Cheeky-MonkeyFree MemberWe do have to expect that whatever we do out there, there will always be somebody who doesn't like it…
I don't want to sound like SfB BUT just because somebody gets pissed off isn't necessarily a good enough reason not to do it. Most things involve an element of compromise, you can't please all the people, all the time.
You have to go a little beyond whether "a few" people might be pissed off and look at whether that is outwieghed by the benefits of any change. Also, folks can get pissed off without it being right to be so. Sorry, words to convey this well are failing me a bit 😎
Edric, read into the subject a bit more – civil prosecution, so no police, court action needed by private individuals, legal fees etc etc and then quantify what financial value any "damage" and its rectification would amount to. A few shovels of dirt / gravel to make right? Peanuts. Worth taking to court? I doubt it.
They can't bring a class action against all MTBers and recover all damages because we are not one entity. A rider could only be taken to court for the damage they caused (and it could be proved that they were responsible for). I just don't think that's ever likely to happen. Has it?
As for the Council getting involved, I suggested that the most pertinent word there is "could" i.e. they aren't likely to. Certainly not in my experience.
Bear in mind as well that I'm talking about the legal / RoW definition of a footpath. In practice this might be a ribbon of dirt, a broad path, a farmers unmade road or even a metalled road. This is one of the ridiculous aspects of the RoW situation in England, it bears no relation to the suitablility of the path/trail/road for the type of use legally afforded.
And just to be crystal clear, I accept that not all paths/trails/roads will be suitable for MTB use. I'd even go so far as to accept that some existing ones where MTBers are permitted might not be suitable either. All I'd hope in such instances is that rather than loosing an existing right by reclassifaction efforts could be made to bring the path up to a reasonable standard, suitable for it's existing designation.
Finally, I've never allowed anyone to tar me with the behaviours of others. All this "representative of MTBers" is a bit of a smokescreen in my opinion. Just like I don't think all car drivers / dog walkers / horse riders are funkers, but there are individuals amongst the "group" who will behave like that. You don't legislate for the lowest common denominator, you do so for the majority.
crazy-legsFull MemberSo fxck everyone especially farmers and ride what we like then? How arrogant can you get?
You're taking the wrong view.
I don't think anyone on here would go screaming through a flock of sheep whether it's a BW or FP. It's not about whether you should or shouldn't be on the trail, it's about how responsibly you behave whenever and wherever you ride.Ride whatever you want in a responsible manner, treat the land and the property on the land (buildings/animals etc) with respect.
Cheeky-MonkeyFree MemberHow many folk on here would actually not ride track (legal or otherwise) if they thought they might make a mess of it? I'm not sure anyone is going to be THAT responsible are they?
Let's not kid ourselves here, we're after more fun first and if that helps the environment second then so be it?
A lot of riders who use Ilkley Moor accept exactly that situation. There are legal sections to ride and there are "grey areas". It either gets ridden in the dry (or drier) times or when it's frozen (or several foot deep in snow).
So yes, some riders do adopt a sensible, sensitive and pragmatic approach.
If I've been cutting ruts with my mighty leg power up some mulchy climb I've either backed off the mighty (as if) power (as it's better technique – a spinning wheel isn't giving any traction) or sacked it and pushed.
The topic ‘cheeky trails’ is closed to new replies.