Having bridleway on your land is more hassle than a footpath and allowing cyclists. Bridleways require gates that can be opened to allow horses through and a bridleway going through crops is required to have a wider path than a footpath.

The word illegal was used to me by the council not just by me to back up my earlier comment

Then the person you spoke to knows as much as you.

How 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?

There's many areas around here I avoid in the winter or after long spells of rain because it really does ruin the trail for everyone.

Edric – I work for a council. When that funny little thing in the corner makes that noise and I have to pick it up and say hello, I say what I have to make the other person go away as soon as possible. We all employ the path of least resistance here :-}.

Ride where ever you want is not going to endear you to farmers if on a footpath though is it?

No 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.

this keeps getting more and more delusional :o)

So fxck everyone especially farmers and ride what we like then? How arrogant can you get?

how exactly do farmers become "fxcked" by the passage of a few bikes ? Are they very delicate ? Perhaps they should concentrate on their jobs and stop fussing about irrelevancies ? Aren't they usually in the office counting their EU subsidies for not doing anything ? (I speak from profound ignorance here)

Ride where ever you want is not going to endear you to farmers if on a footpath though is it?

Some farmers probably don't much like people walking on the footpaths either. or filling the country lanes with cars while driving somewhere when they need to get a tractor through.

Equally, some farmers probably don't particularly care, provided people aren't damaging crops or disturbing animals.

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.

That was exactly my point. I think that you've explained it fine 😉

I'm having trouble explaining myself too 😳

I just can't see how any of this is going to bring about any change. In addition surely if it runs the risk of antagonising the average person who currently doesn't really hold an opinion, then how can that be a good thing?

There's a big difference to a sneaky footpath late at night on your own and a large group of a dozen riders, however friendly they might be?

Some people on here really seem to have no respect for the country or those who own and work the land .Can I suggest they stay in town and take up squash again?

There's many areas around here I avoid in the winter or after long spells of rain because it really does ruin the trail for everyone.

Likewise… but for two reasons… not only does it ruin the trail but it is also shyte to ride 😉

The point is that there are probably a fair number of responsible folks on here, but as for the masses out there, I'd be surprised if most of them gave two hoots… so do you think that most folks would abide by the 'Cheeky Code of Ethics' ? (which on the whole agree with by the way)

Just like the average folk in my local forest don't abide by the country code and leave it full of their crap on the day after a bank hol?

Well I come from farming background and know that most farmers are happy for people to access the land they farm. They don't really care if you on a bike, walking or horseback all they care is you don't damage crop, disturb the livestock any more than necessary and don't damage their property. Do that and they will wave a cheery hello, chat to you and offer you areas to ride. Very few really get pissed of if your responsible.

Likewise Norbert I avoid as it's awful to ride too.

Some people on here really seem to have no respect for the country or those who own and work the land. Can I suggest they stay in town and take up squash again?

Are you suggesting that those presenting a reasoned argument for wider access to the countryside are new to MTBing? I've only been riding for 19 years myself, though I never did play squash or anything.

You seem to be mistaking respect for the land with respect for decisions made by parish councils in the 1950s.

norbert colon – Member

How 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?

Yup – many of us don't ride certain local trails when wet – partly because we know it would not be responsible and partly because thats what the various codes say.

In Scotland it is clearly about responsible acccess – a part of which is not upsetting other users. Some routes I will not use on a Sunny Sunday for this very reason – too many folk around

But why should a rider have to "poach" / tresspass a perfectly suitably (functionally) trail/path/road just because it has been arbitrarily given a RoW designation that doesn't allow them to use it? In such instances you don't even have to be particularly sensitive or sustainable in yoiur use, surely? Certainly in the situations I'm imagining such tracks wouldn't be susceptible to erosion from one or umpteen bikers.

That's one facet of the argument.

As for poaching all the sweet, sinuous, flowing, grin inducing stuff that might be designated Footpath or anything else that precludes riding. All I can say is that, if the majority of us are prepared to be sensible and behave appropriately, why can't we share with other users?

I'm not looking to blaze a random trail through the middle of crops and flocks. I don't particularly want to ride absolutely anywhere a wheel could possibly roll. However, I would love to have the legal right to share the use of all the appropriate trails/paths/roads throughout England with the other users that already have the right of access.

I still intend to poach cheeky stuff or whatever term anyone deems to give it in the meantime. I'll still argue that to make a big fuss about my use of "appropriate" trails/paths/roads is to waste their time and effort as well as mine. So much of this is all navel gazing but talking about it before and thinking about it more has helped me form what I think is a relatively well balanced and rational approach that doesn't just rest on the pillar of "it's illegal (whatever)" therefore you should never, ever break any law whatsoever.

In Scotland it is clearly about responsible acccess – a part of which is not upsetting other users. Some routes I will not use on a Sunny Sunday for this very reason – too many folk around

Which is all we would like too, I'm not even that bothered about open access just access to all current ROW would be nice.

Some people on here really seem to have no respect for the country or those who own and work the land .

I think you will find that is the opposite. Edric, you really do seem to have a big chip on your shoulder about this.

For the record, I stopped playing squash years ago.

Edric 64 – Member

Some people on here really seem to have no respect for the country or those who own and work the land .

I'm sure this is true but this does not explain why you think that one person riding a bike over a footpath will have a worse effect for a farmer than one person walking, or even walking and pushing a bike over a footpath. If this is not what you mean I apologies but it's the impression that you are giving.

Just out interest, do any of the hardline obedient people find it at all ironic or irritating that the bridleway legislation is almost entirely a historical accident, predating the existence of the mountain bike?

Edric – I think you've missed the point entirely chap, nobody is advocating trashing the countryside for anyone else. Just whether or not we should be allowed more access?

Sounds much more sensible in Scotland TJ

Is it helped by the fact that the countryside is less populated and hence there are less folk around in the first place? or is it just a case of giving people a chance to act more resposibly and think for themselves, means that they do?

I don't disagree with riding the odd cheeky trail and the whole debate helps me to try and form a balanced view of my own. But do we really think that riding the odd cheeky trail is going to help reverse the crap decisons of the 50's? I'm happy to enjoy the cheekiness, but don't think that I'm going to be helping the 'cause'… just as long as I don't hinder the process either 😉

this is a bridleway near my local trails – the next one along the motorway is a footpath.

EDIT: this is a footpath

Just out interest, do any of the hardline obedient people find it at all ironic or irritating that the bridleway legislation is almost entirely a historical accident, predating the existence of the mountain bike?

That's kind of what Dave's article is about.

Suns out….Yahooo… lets get cheeky trailing and discuss this in the pub later. Good old SB ? always baits, waits,hooks them and then plays his catch. 8)

norbert colon – Member

Sounds much more sensible in Scotland TJ

Is it helped by the fact that the countryside is less populated and hence there are less folk around in the first place? or is it just a case of giving people a chance to act more resposibly and think for themselves, means that they do?

I think its a bit of both

I think a completely different culture has grown up over the years. The mountaineers always used bicycles on the estate roads to get to the more remote munros so MTBers are seen as legitimate users of the countryside. MTBers on the whole tend to be responsible in where and how they ride as well. There is little history of problems getting access either on foot or by bike. Perhaps the amount of trail centres means that if people want fast blasts they can go to GT rather than tear up a bridleway – so the MTBers out in the hills tend to be riding slower and more courteously.

(third thoughts)

Bloody hell, I've read most of this but I've only skim read beyond this phrase:

What I don't do is speculate on the mental states of others.

This immediately put a word in my head.
Third hit from googling it is an article which starts:

Imagine – if you can – not having a conscience, none at all, no feelings of guilt or remorse no matter what you do, no limiting sense of concern for the well-being of strangers, […]. Imagine no struggles with shame, not a single one in your whole life, no matter what kind of selfish, lazy, harmful, or immoral action you had taken.
And pretend that the concept of responsibility is unknown to you, except as a burden others seem to accept without question, like gullible fools.

I recognise that I'm selecting a particular phrase from a particular post and responding to that in isolation. I also recognise that it might be taken as a massive personal slight, which I don't intend, which is why I’ve also selected only a certain part of the article, because the remainder says things I don’t want to say and don’t believe. I was just struck by the first quote and then struck by the second. I think that personality traits are shades of grey rather than black and white. Rather like sensible approaches to cycling on footpaths.

Its a shame some think we need rules when common sence and compromise would have done a better job. I will stick to being sensitive and polite while riding cheeky trails.

my 2 hour sunset ride last night involved lots of lovely footpaths, the only people i saw did give me a bit of a grumble, even though i was on a bridleway at the time.

ho-hum.

Yes, i stopped long before our paths crossed, i moved to the side, i said hello, patted their pooch (which wasn't on a lead despite it being june => nesting season), etc.

oh, and edric; none of the footpaths are on farmland, so no 'people who work the land' or their crops / animals were harmed or inconvenienced or trespassed against.

Edric 64 – Member

Some people on here really seem to have no respect for the country or those who own and work the land .

The farming related detritus i see littering the countryside round here suggests those who work it have no respect either.

In fact i'd say i have more respect because i view it as an natural asset rather than a financial asset.

True in some respects .There are farmers who live in shit and rust I agree

Cycling is niche in this country, mountain biking is a niche in a niche, and cheeky trails is a niche in a niche in a niche. The article was right about arbitrary categorisation of bridleways and foot paths. How flipping silly eh? The argument for open access is legitimate, but:

1. We aren't exactly popular with some other trail users
2. We have no effective single voice, and ain't going to win a straight up debate easily against well organised groups like the ramblers, NT, National Parks etc.
3. There's a risk lack of considerate use of trails actually pushes our cause backwards.
4. It's not like the Kinder Trespass. We will not get mass law breaking events going, and even if we did, we'd not get much sympathy from the wider public in the short term.

If we genuinely want to legitimise the cheeky stuff, I think the thing that will most help our cause in the short term is developments like CyB, GT or the Adrenaline Gateway in Lancashire. This shows that mountain biking can be used as a re-generation tool in areas that really need it. It needed people sympathetic to our cause in positions of influence to get this going. They are the visionaries!

If local businesses see an increase in trade due to mountain biking, they'll come over to our way of thinking eventually, cos money talks.

The other thing we should look at in the short term is infiltrating other groups to get a say in things. Thinking here of the example where the anti-hunt people joined the National Trust en-masse to get hunting stopped on NT land. We need to work the systems already in place. Use the force Luke.

Longer term it'd be great to have a powerful lobbying body, but see niche issue above – we're too small in number at present to pull this off without backing from other bodies who have influence.

Oh yeah, and in the long term we'll all be dead, so in the meantime I'll continue to use cheeky trails…..

If we genuinely want to legitimise the cheeky stuff, I think the thing that will most help our cause in the short term is developments like CyB, GT or the Adrenaline Gateway in Lancashire. This shows that mountain biking can be used as a re-generation tool in areas that really need it. It needed people sympathetic to our cause in positions of influence to get this going. They are the visionaries!

The alternative argument is the one of ghetto-isation ie "you have trail centres, why don't you go and ride there"
That one needs to be a very careful balancing act otherwise MTBers will simply end up shooting themselves in the foot.

We have trail centres where only we can ride but hey, we want these FP's as well.

Hmmm…

crazy-legs – agree totally. This is where lack of considerate trail use could really hurt us (n.b. "trail" = bridleway AND footpath, and anything else we ride on for that matter).

If we're seen to be dangerous or inconsiderate of the other users in anti-social ways, there's always a risk there will be pressure to move us into the centres exclusively.

Edric, out of interest where do you live / ride?

good point C-legs or even worse….. you've got yer trail centres so we're going to stop you riding on bridleways too 😮

Shirley, there's a danger that if you make too much fuss, we could easily end up worse off, rather than better?

Agree very much with the first part of snowslave's post though.

Edit… beat me to it snowslave

Somerset I nearly always ride on the Mendips

What I don't do is speculate on the mental states of others. etc

that was in response to:
"You don't argue, or even listen/read. You just transmit."
Buzzlightyear was speculating about my mental states on inadequate evidence.

The thing is, my approach is to behave as if the changes to access we'd like have already taken place. This doesn't require cooperation from anyone else. For those who instead feel that we should all play nice so that eventually (century unspecified) The Man will magnanimously grant us the Holy Grail (or at least, a few coloured baubles), they have to present a compelling argument to change my behaviour – and not only me, but also many other unknown parties who don't even know of (or care about) the controversy.

I've been told by someone who has been far more deeply involved in the bureaucratic process that the powers that be are actually more likely to regularise existing behaviour than to create new access.

Longer term it'd be great to have a powerful lobbying body

as I've pointed out before, the types attracted to mountain biking seem for the most part to be ill suited to joint action, to the extent that many prefer to ride alone. I did have hopes for IMBA, but lost patience with them when they carried out a joint trail sanitisation project (thankfully now nearly defunct) in Grizedale with a 4×4 group. This forum gives ample evidence that we cannot agree on anything 🙂

Shirley, there's a danger that if you make too much fuss, we could easily end up worse off, rather than better?

as exampled near Street Gate, Malham when the formal inquiry into promoting a section of FP to match the BW it connected to resulted in the BW being demoted 🙁

Personally I think its pretty hard to disagree with simons statement above. However I have noticed Simons method of arguing appears to be
1. Act like a really ****
2. Home in on one person and really try and **** them off
3. If the conversation starts to deviate any from Simon try and make some comments which will **** everyone off to remind them the conversation is about Simon.
4. When people are really ****ed off and are starting to assume your a complete troll hit them with some well thought out arguments which will surprise them every more as they'd previously assumed you only had one brain cell.

Its an interesting approach I must say and it seems to be somewhat effective on a internet forum, although I'd wonder how it would work in real life.

2. Home in on one person and really try and **** them off

you have that backwards. I home in on ideas, and often don't notice who's expressing them. Other people focus on me for reasons I've never understood.

although I'd wonder how it would work in real life.

I've only been doing it for 55 years so the jury is still out 🙂

TandemJeremy – Member
Perhaps the amount of trail centres means that if people want fast blasts they can go to GT rather than tear up a bridleway – so the MTBers out in the hills tend to be riding slower and more courteously.

what utter fictitious drivel!

what utter fictitious drivel!

please don't flame TJ or he'll throw his teddy 🙁
He's a sensitive flower who needs careful handling…

Diggers – nice of you to be so reasonable – note the "perhaps" I was looking for reasons why there is less conflict with walkers in Scotland and I think that might be a part of it. Less MTBers acting like idiots on th hill paths as there is easier access to the trail centres to do so

Ride in Scotland do you?