Have there been instants (regular?) of riders flouting the ban?

scandal42 – Member

Oh the irony, a moronic attempt at playing the intellect if ever I saw one.

I’m sure you know what you are talking about.

Walked up Snowdon twice last year during the ban, bikes up there both times.
It’s unique when it comes to the sheer number of walkers and the subsequent problems of shared use.

Really? I’d step sideways and say ‘oops ****’.

I’m sure you know what you are talking about.

TBF the same could be said about your pansies/pyjama rant-ette.

Well it’s a voluntary agreement and has been in place for twenty years +/- a year or two. There’ll always be some who either ride up/down Snowdon outside the agreed times but as others have said there’s no personal penalty for doing so. I’ve not ridden up Snowden but it’s not pleasant even walking it during peak weekends so can’t imagine that it would be any better trying to ride it.

If the OP wants to see what bans are like then look at climbing, there are quite a few crags where climbing is restricted either seasonally due to nesting birds or completely due to rare flora and fauna. These bans aren’t simply tokens, they are backed up by law and flouting them, even in ignorance, can and does lead to prosecutions.

Fair? Who said anything about life being fair?

I think 1or2 days a month “voluntary ban” for walkers would be a nice gesture to show walkers appreciate we are valid mountain users, heck 1 day a year during the “ban” would do it I reckon, summer solstice?*

This idea is growing on me but there is no way we could get this info out to every single walker

which is the biggest barrier to new riders taking up cycling

Its hard to get up massive mountains like Snowdon?

Who on earth tries that as a noob?

The Llanberis path is mostly rideable up now.

IMHO it is NFM
Not for mortals so go you – not saying it cannot be done as I have seen folk ride lots of it but most of us will be pushing up much of it

In Scotland you only have access rights if you exercise them responsibly.

It is not the free for all that people seem to think it is.

“If your recreation is one which is likely to cause a hazard (for example cycling fast or driving a cart or carriage with horses or dogs) you should take particular care not to cause risk to others. If you are on shared-use routes you must show care and consideration for others, deferring to those who are most vulnerable.”

“On narrow routes, cycling may cause problems for other people, such as walkers and horse riders. If this occurs, dismount and walk until the path becomes suitable again. Do not endanger walkers and horse riders: give other users advance warning of your presence and give way to them on a narrow path.”

Above quotes from the Scottish Outdoor Access Code. I am sure there will be an equivalent for Wales.

This idea is growing on me but there is no way we could get this info out to every single walker

After 20 years Team redsox/mtbapologists* don’t appear to have got the current message to all mtbers so I wouldn’t worry.

*probably unfair but couldn’t resist apologies 🙂

Have there been instants (regular?) of riders flouting the ban?

This is the question isn’t it, there’s a world of difference between “didn’t know” and “don’t care” .

If the OP wants to see what bans are like then look at climbing

Or kayaking. Access to rivers in England and Wales is horrendous, unless of course you’re a maggot drowner…

Many rivers, or you could say rivers in general have a voluntary agreement with kayakers. We don’t paddle when we are likely to cause harm, such as in very low water where you’re essentially scraping down the riverbed(whether this actually causes the harm to marine life that most self-interested parties(read-Anglers…) claim it does is debatable)

Of course, plenty still do it, but generally folks understand the reasons when it’s not a great idea, not to mention no fun!

It’s the same on popular peaks such as Snowdon. Some people just need a little guidance on what many people regard as common sense etiquette.

We are still a tiny minority so it’s better to try to be harmonious really.

“Voluntary ban”? You didn’t volunteer for it did you, and it isn’t legally enforceable, in fact there is legal right to ride bikes on bridleways.

But in the summer season, the mountain is ridiculously popular with tourists – everyone want to “do Snowdon” whether on bike or foot. Playing dodge all the way down will ruin their day as much as yours.

Other mountains are available, or just ride it out-of-hours/season.

My understanding was that the agreement was put in place to avoid a proper all out ban on cycling on Snowdon. When tne overwhelming majority of people going up Snowdon are riders, then we can ask for the walkers to restrict themselves. Until then, feel we need to politely do the responsible thing.

Would only take one unfortunate incident to cause a big stink and then we may well lose all rights to ride there, which would be the thin end of an unfortunate wedge.

As shown above, the Scottish rights brings with them responsibilities, we need to show the right attitude if we want the same down here.

nesting birds or completely due to rare flora and fauna

all without a doubt worthwhile causes and bans rightly so, no environemt should be sacrificed for fun

walkers, hmmm? not sure how much value they bring to the eco system

walkers, hmmm? not sure how much value they bring to the eco system

don’t get many points for flattening them, especially if there’s a herd of them (Death Race 2000 rules)

I’d much rather be asked nicely not to do something that told outright I am not allowed to do it.

Sure, I could refuse when asked nicely, but when the vast majority of ‘my’ people (i.e. mtb riders) comply with the polite request then what would it say about my attitude?

If this became a full-time ‘voluntary ban’, then I think you’d find a majority of riders would flout it, so the position of the OP would not be unreasonable judged by the actions of his/her peers.

(Awaits furious spittle-flecked response from ‘oppressed’ riders).

I wish stupid people were banned from the internet.

I wish stupid people were banned from the internet.

Is it welsh half-term?

mtbapologists*

There is only one MTB i have to apologise for ona regular basis

*probably unfair but couldn’t resist apologies

😆
Just too tempting 😉

IMO the whole fuss seems to be over not much more than wording.

“Voluntary Ban” is obviously an oxymoron but also the use of that word “Ban” that perhaps unduly upsets a few by suggesting there is an enforced, removal of access rights.

Perhaps a better description would be “Agreed access limit for bicycles”…

The basis for the whole thing is sensible, understandable and actually quite fair, I’m sure other user groups could have made a case for a complete ban on bikes, citing erosion and Public safety concerns, and the parks authority might have just listened to them.

I say well done for NWMBA and others for negotiating the agreement, they haven’t “given away” anyone’s rights, they’ve actually managed to preserve them.
If you really want to enjoy a shite ride down Snowdon at peak time, through crowds of walkers you still can, but this goes against the guidance and general agreement that the majority of user groups have signed up to, that should indicate to you that you are being a bell-end if you choose to behave in this way….

MTBers are not some “oppressed minority”, we are in the main, white middle-class, males with free time and above average disposable income, heaven forbid such a group consider others before themselves…

I wish stupid people were banned from the internet.

Is it welsh half-term?

Wasn’t aimed at you but, if the cap fits…..

Just imagine though, you wouldn’t get threads like this where you have to explain over and over again why using the same path as both a downhill MTB course and a walkers footpath at the same time is probably not such a great idea.

The voluntary ban is a great solution, only a complete moron would argue otherwise or take it as an attack on their freedoms.

So now mtbers aren’t quite as insignificant a minority as we once were, any chance of renegotiating the terms of the not-really-a ban?

Indeed it is about the best way to use a shared space so that both groups can enjoy it

I still think there is some merit in banning them now though as well as us.
It not really workable though.
how about we get the rangers then for some of the time and we can push up any route?

The voluntary ban is a great solution, only a complete moron would argue otherwise or take it as an attack on their freedoms.

I think they’re still back on page one foaming….

The way I look at it is this – at the moment, the voluntary agreement allows us to share the mountain with walkers. We could en masse flout the agreement, or push for walkers to be banned either a day or two a month or whatever, but realistically it ain’t gonna happen – it would however raise the ire of the ramblers, and we’d probably be kicked off for good.

The walkers on Snowden are like a sleeping elephant – as long as the status quo is maintained, and you stay within the rules, you can do what you want, whatever you want. But the moment we wake that elephant up, look out, cause it’ll trample everything…

Used to get “I demand my right to ride!!” eedjits on motocross forums aaaaall the time. “There’s no tracks by us, we have to use wasteland or there’s nowhere else to ride!!” Well – guess what? If you’ve nowhere legal to ride, you don’t ride. Or you DO ride, and you damage the sport for everyone else who respects the rules and pee off the establishment, thus further increasing the likelihood of tracks being closed, and that means you’re a knob.

pondo – Member

Used to get “I demand my right to ride!!” eedjits on motocross forums aaaaall the time. “There’s no tracks by us, we have to use wasteland or there’s nowhere else to ride!!” Well – guess what? If you’ve nowhere legal to ride, you don’t ride. Or you DO ride, and you damage the sport for everyone else who respects the rules and pee off the establishment, thus further increasing the likelihood of tracks being closed, and that means you’re a knob.

Course, the counter to that is, why should other people not ride, so that you can continue to ride? Easy to see why some folks would see that as you wanting to protect your privilege at the expense of others.

(not that this applies to mountain biking)

Used to get “I demand my right to ride!!” eedjits on motocross forums aaaaall the time. “There’s no tracks by us, we have to use wasteland or there’s nowhere else to ride!!” Well – guess what? If you’ve nowhere legal to ride, you don’t ride. Or you DO ride, and you damage the sport for everyone else who respects the rules and pee off the establishment, thus further increasing the likelihood of tracks being closed, and that means you’re a knob.

I agree, also Snowdon is a fairly unique case, but also don’t forget how ramblers got their access rights in the first place via the Kinder Trespass. Different times of course, but worth bearing in mind. If only to mention to the ones that have to have a moan even when you’re riding considerately on a quiet FP ..

Course, the counter to that is, why should other people not ride, so that you can continue to ride?

It damages the sport – my riding or not riding legally will make no difference to them, but them riding illegally increases opposition to the sport and is likely to to have a negative impact on me riding. Goodness knows the number of tracks that have closed due to noise complaints in the last 10 or 20 years, the sport needs to do all it can to help itself. And it’s NOT a given right, the right to ride – it’s a privilege, and needs protecting. IMHO, of course. 🙂

That was interestingly harder to answer than I thought at first. 🙂

If only to mention to the ones that have to have a moan even when you’re riding considerately on a quiet FP

Surely you mean bridleway? 🙂

IANAL so I’d like to know what this “or we’ll be banned altogether” thing looks like, if anyone could expand on it a bit?

My understanding (pretty vague as you’ll see) is that people on bikes and horses (and foot) have a RIGHT to use bridleways – you don’t need someone to say “yes you can go there” – it’s a bridleway, so legally we can use it.

So if “the authorities” decide they don’t want bikes on Snowden, surely they can’t just say that, what legal authority is needed? I know that, going the other way, rights of way can be established by proving that they’ve been used without disruption or whatever for so many years, so given that those criteria would be met on these routes, how could they not be judged to be bridleways?

Surely you mean bridleway?

No, I think he meant footpath, the point being that they only exist (oversimplifying I know) because of the Kinder trespass etc, so walkers are being a bit inconsistent moaning about bikers doing the same thing – wilfully trespassing on routes which they should have the same access rights to as walkers?

But the moment we wake that elephant up, look out, cause it’ll trample everything..

So basically you’re worried about being bullied? They are more powerful than us so don’t upset them? Cyclists are getting a rough deal from other more powerful user groups in other parts of the country (eg. new forest) should we capitulate there too?

Well – guess what? If you’ve nowhere legal to ride, you don’t ride. Or you DO ride, and you damage the sport for everyone else who respects the rules and pee off the establishment,

woah woah, we’re talking about a bridleway, a classification we are allowed to ride on. Only reason we “voluntarily” accepted being booted off the best part of the year is coz redsox were going to spit their dummy and attempt to turf us off permanently.

Only a couple of people on page 1 were suggesting ignoring the ban, rest of us questioning it are merely suggesting renegotiation.

Edit

So if “the authorities” decide they don’t want bikes on Snowden, surely they can’t just say that, what legal authority is needed?

Also interested in this

Isn’t there a right of way officer who sometimes posts on here? Might be able to clarify the legal position. I’ve heard of rights of way being created or upgraded (FP to BW) if there’s a long standing historical use of a particular path, but never down graded.

While I agree with the “don’t ride when it’s way too busy” request, I don’t like the “or else” bit tagged on the end – or else what?

Talk of erosion by MTBers – especially on a path where the cause of the vast majority of erosion is pretty clear – does wind me up.

The arrangement seems OK though, sounds like you wouldn’t enjoy riding it at those times anyway.

But the moment we wake that elephant up, look out, cause it’ll trample everything..

So basically you’re worried about being bullied? They are more powerful than us so don’t upset them? [/quote]
You can look at it like that – I’d say that, at the minute, the status quo on Snowden is pretty decent, and I don’t see there being much chance of a positive outcome if cycling pushed for more extended access – I don’t see that as being bullied, just a sensible compromise on a shared and precious resource.

Well – guess what? If you’ve nowhere legal to ride, you don’t ride. Or you DO ride, and you damage the sport for everyone else who respects the rules and pee off the establishment,

woah woah, we’re talking about a bridleway, a classification we are allowed to ride on.
[/quote]

Sorry, sorry – that quote of mine wasn’t, that was specifically about riding motocross bikes illegally.

I think there was a BW in Cumbria that the landowners were trying to get downgraded to a footpath. Don’t know what happened in the end, it was a few years ago.

In general getting the status of a right of way changed is not an easy process, even diverting one for safety reasons is long winded.

“Or Else”, well not much I’d have thought. Bikers have a legal right to ride the Snowdon bridleways, that hasn’t been taken away, it’s whether it’s sensible to assert that right. Mountain biking is a new activity when compared to walking and horse-riding and any new activity is going to meet with some resistance from those who don’t like change. The agreement wouldn’t have been made if there hadn’t been some problem in the past.

I suspect if you asked all those walking up Snowdon about the agreement 99% wouldn’t know (or care) what you were talking about. So the occasional rider who breaks the agreement isn’t going to cause too many problems because most people there don’t realise that the bikers shouldn’t be there at that time of day. If lots of riders broke the agreement then there’d be people moaning leading to calls for a ban.

To answer someone above who said that they didn’t sign up to the agreement, well neither did I but I’m not going to break it just to prove a point. It’s cutting off your nose to spite your face. Good access agreements can be held up in ongoing discussions to show that bikers do respect others, the environment, etc.

Land owners can apply to have rights of access withdrawn or restricted – usually on environmental or farming grounds, not uncommon for nesting birds or lambing in places.

iirc, we don’t have an express right on bridleways, just that we weren’t specifically excluded? Pretty sure the land owners could get that legal oversight corrected if we dicked about and caused accidents.

If anyone wants to organise a mass trespass on footpaths to raise the profile of our cause for access, fair enough, I’d join in. But rights bring responsibilities, Snowdon is just not the right fight to pick.

Mountain biking is a new activity when compared to walking and horse-riding and any new activity is going to meet with some resistance from those who don’t like change.

this kinda grates, are we forever going to be the young upstart that will be slapped down in his place when he gets uppity just coz horses were invented before 26″ wheels? Mtbs have been around over 20years ruffstuffers have been out and about much longer, when do we get an equal say?

The agreement wouldn’t have been made if there hadn’t been some problem in the past.

does anyone know of a problem? Or is it just walkers not wanting to share?

Morecash, is snowdon really a fight we are picking? It is a BW after all, going for FP access would be more of a “fight” Shirley? At the time seemingly there was pressure to keep off so an mtb group volunteered the ban/curfew is that perpetual arrangement? (If so why?) If not I’d say its about time to rediscuss, of course that could lead to leaving it in place as is, or it could be a different arrangement … Who knows, maybe we could wangle a walker free day on the big hill, make it a celebratory mtb day, to commemorate getting mtb rights?
(Currently we seem to just get lumped in by default with horses apart from when horse riders have enough regional political sway to exclude us too)

Edit hmm I’d like to think cycling has enough weight nowadays to get a fair share of access but thinking about it maybe an mtb class, separate from horses would lead to us getting kicked off a load of currently legit stuff….bugger. Please pretty please can we just have Scottish style access?

when do we get an equal say

When we are equally well represented and pro-active?

How? By joining cycle organisations and contacting my MP about cycling stuff jameso? Owt else?