I agree with TJ. When I drive I like to drive hard and anyone who can't pedal at 60mph can feel the wrath of the Berlingo (yes, it can do 60mph) 😈

I have to say I'm not a fan of dogs at trail centres, I can see the possibility of accidents to both riders and dogs. Having said that, I've come across it a few times, never actually seen an accident.

As long as the owners take full responsibility for the actions and consequences of taking their dogs on the trails then I don't have a problem.

Any dog owner that says 'oh my dog would never do that' is a **** idiot.

so car drivers don't need to make any allowance for cyclists on the road?

I personally don't make any more allowances for cyclists than I do for drivers, we don't need it if we all follow the same rules and if we're all careful we get along well together (read as green/blue routes). However I'd be a bit miffed if a road marked specifically for powered vehicles (motorways) had idiot cyclists all over it (read as red and black routes). I really can't understand how this concept is difficult to grasp. I'm not suggesting riding like an idiot, I'm not suggesting being blatently disrespectful of people, I'm suggesting that cyclists should have right of way on a cycle-specific park red/black route, not people, or dogs.

I'm not arguing that I'm right under the law now, I'm arguing that the law is wrong and I'd happily challenge it in court if the need arose. Out of interest, a quick re-read of the "code" says:

Sports pitches
You cannot exercise access rights on any sports pitch, playing field or other areas set out for a recreational purpose (such as for archery or other target sports) while it is in use and take account of grounds maintenance operations.

One could reasonably assume that a set of cycle trails set aside for cycling and being used for cycling (i.e. if the centre is not shut) is specifically an area set aside for recreational purpose and as such doesn't fall under the outdoor access rights.

Coffeeking.

I'm suggesting that cyclists should have right of way on a cycle-specific park red/black route, not people, or dogs.

Maybe they should – but they don't in law as it stands

I'm not suggesting riding like an idiot,

But you refuse to ride within the limits of what you can see and say that if anyone gets in your way and you injure than thats tough.

One could reasonably assume that a set of cycle trails set aside for cycling and being used for cycling (i.e. if the centre is not shut) is specifically an area set aside for recreational purpose and as such doesn't fall under the outdoor access rights.

You cannot assume that. it needs a test case. Without a test case to state that, the trails have exactly the same legal status as all other trails – open for all with pedestrians having priority.

this is quite clear from other cases – nature trails that bikes used to be banned on are now open to all. You cannot have your cake and eat it.

But you refuse to ride within the limits of what you can see

how can you see what's on the bottom of large drop off????

Do you suggest we stop riding them and take chicken runs instead or get off and push?

And before you come back with the "injured rider on the landing response", don't bother.

Maybe they should – but they don't in law as it stands

I've not disagreed with this statement.

But you refuse to ride within the limits of what you can see and say that if anyone gets in your way and you injure than thats tough.

That's your view. I'd suggest anyone walking on the trail was an idiot and I'm riding it as it was intended.

You cannot assume that. it needs a test case. Without a test case to state that, the trails have exactly the same legal status as all other trails – open for all with pedestrians having priority.

Legally, yes you're right (as I've said, and I'm getting bored of saying!) but common sense says otherwise. Unless walkers/dog walkers purposefully go out of their way to force their legal right to walk down a marked MTB trail in order to prove that they have priority I don't see this being a huge issue. I can't see why anyone would do that when there's plenty of other places to do such activities, but some people are very odd at times. It doesnt stop me pointing out that taking dogs on a fast MTB trail is stupid, as is pootling along on a red/black route with kids, as is walking on one.

this is quite clear from other cases – nature trails that bikes used to be banned on are now open to all. You cannot have your cake and eat it.

I'm not particularly one for having cake and eating it in this case. I don't see the issue at all here, on bike specific areas bikes should have priority to prevent other users spoiling the bikers fun. If someone marks some trails as walker-specific I'll not ride down them to prevent me spoiling the walkers fun. On any other trails, unmarked in any way, I'll happily accept equal use of the land and ensure I tread carefully around people.

I've never argued that I was right in the eyes of the law, you seemed to assume I was. I was arguing that a) the walker is possibly in the wrong depending on how you read the clauses and b) the law is not following common sense. I cannot determine how a judge would see such a case, but I'd made damn sure this point of mine was heard as I just can't see any problems caused by it and I can't see how such a common-sense approach is not in the interest of both parties.

Anyway, I have a birthday meal to go to – enjoy your evening all!

Ok – you win. You have the right to ride trail centres with no consideration for others at all. You can ride over anyone – biker walker or any dog who gets in your way and bask in the fact you think you are morally right despite being legally wrong.

<still answering another post so I'll reply again>

Ok – you win. You have the right to ride trail centres with no consideration for others at all. You can ride over anyone – biker walker or any dog who gets in your way and bask in the fact you think you are morally right despite being legally wrong.

I see, so walkers (who you admit have priority at the moment) on normal walking trails have the right to walk all over me if I get in their way? No, but they DO have priority currently and bikers/horse riders should move out of the way/be careful of them, not vice versa.

Please don't try to extend things to stupid extremes to try to justify your argument, it just looks like you're unable to argue your side which we both know you can. Switching priorities depending on land use is hardly complex or difficult to achieve, especially when it's signed already and is in the best interest of both parties. In fact I can see only one slight complexity at the moment and thats if someone walks into a trail mid-trail rather than at a junction, which could be considered to be a point at which you need to assess what sort of trail it is and make sure you're careful if you dont know what priority you have. Sure we could all go with the easy option of no-one has priority but then we could all sit at home on the sofa in case something bad happens too, but it's hardly advisable.

I just got fed up of you ignoring the point. You accept the provisions of the law but think them against common sense and against what you want to do so you will ignore them

You also ignore the whole ethos of the LRA which is all about reasonable behaviour and consensus and sharing.

Yes a walker on GT red is stupid – and I have seen them do it and advised them that there are more sensible routes but they still get there. The original point was about dogs any you don't want them on the trails because they might spoil your chance to race around with no consideration for others. So might children or slower folk – you seem to want them off the trail as well.

Have a think – your position makes no logical sense.

I just got fed up of you ignoring the point. You accept the provisions of the law but think them against common sense and against what you want to do so you will ignore them

I never said I would ignore them, I just said that is what should be the case.

You also ignore the whole ethos of the LRA which is all about reasonable behaviour and consensus and sharing.

No I don't, I simply pointed out that a bike trail centre is a location with a specific recreational purpose and, as such, does (or at least should) hold true to the LRA which says such areas are not "open access" when in use.

Yes a walker on GT red is stupid – and I have seen them do it and advised them that there are more sensible routes but they still get there. The original point was about dogs any you don't want them on the trails because they might spoil your chance to race around with no consideration for others. So might children or slower folk – you seem to want them off the trail as well.

I dont think a fast-paced singletrack is a place for people to have dogs that are ultimately out of control. I also think that taking children or very slow people on a course where they cannot keep up with the general speed of the average red/black skill-level rider is dangerous and stupid. If you want open-access, don't mark the trails as bike trails and don't make trails that are designed to be ridden at speed around bends. Do you know how many trails feature blind bends with 45 degree berms in them that you NEED to hit at full tilt just to make use of the berm? If they're not meant to be used fast, don't design them that way.

Those positions make perfect sense. I'm not sure how you can argue those points other than under the test of "is it legally the case now", which is what you've been trying to do from the start. I've never argued your current legal point of view, from the start, I am fairly sure you're right about it, but I don't think it should be the case.

Any dog owner that says 'oh my dog would never do that' is a **** idiot.

that's pretty much all of them

I also think that taking children or very slow people on a course where they cannot keep up with the general speed of the average red/black skill-level rider is dangerous and stupid.

Its this attitude that gets to me. I am slower than the average round the red especially on the tandem on some sections. I'm not allowed on there anymore? My pals 11 yr old kid was even slower than me ( just 🙂 ) – but loved it. Not allowed either?

I think riding without accepting that their may be slower and less skilful folk about and that there are unforeseen hazards possible foolish and dangerous.

I guess we are actually not as far apart in view as this thread appears. Its about where you draw the line of reasonable. Both got somewhat sidetracked into minutae

To go back to the OP – a well trained dog that is no hazard is reasonable in my view. A badly trained dog that might be a hazard is not.

Depends on how they are trained.. I have a pair of sheep dogs originally trained to run with motorbikes they are as stupid as any other dog when out on a walky ride, sniffing and not always noticing if you get too close however as a basic courtesy they respond to being shouted at very well. 'Get Lost' causes them to get out of the way of anyone approaching them, '**** off' and they will run away off and away from any track to a point they cant be seen or far enough a way a stick or stone wont reach them. I would think that sufficient , I have ridden where riders are accompanied by kids on bikes with no spatial awareness, liable to stray in about any direction without warning whilst the parent rides ahead willing them to keep up without watching them that have been far more dangerous than many dogs I have seen

To go back to the OP – a well trained dog that is no hazard is reasonable in my view. A badly trained dog that might be a hazard is not

define hazard?

who makes the assessment? how are they qualified to make it?

does a

a well trained dog

always behave the same in all circumstances?

despite TJ's expert views above I feel that any trail centre on land that is not "open access" or on a PROW that encourages dog walkers on or off bikes and does not adequately warn all riders to the potential hazard is leaving themselves open to action when an accident occurs. Especially as the centre will have better insurance and will be easier to chase for damages.

I have no objection to dogs on bike trails as long as the owner has no objection to me kicking the s**t out of them if their dog bites me or causes an accident.
having been bitten by a dog whilst riding as a result of seeing dog, slowing down at a safe distance away from the dog so as not to spook it and passing it with plenty of space at less than walking pace and still having the b**tard sink it's teeth into me, whilst the owner looked shocked from about 30 feet away I'd say it's a bad idea.
At the end of the day it's animal and may (however well trained) react in an unexpected way. I'd hate for a dog to be injured by a cyclist or destroyed as a dangerous dog for chewing on someone because the owner is selfish and can't be arsed to exercise their dog in a safe and responsible way for the animal.

Crikey what did i start?

big n daft. The law in Scotland is clear. Trail centres are just paths like any other at the moment. If a test case is brought looking for protection as "other areas set out for a recreational purpose " then the situation might change.

In England I am not so certain. However unless its private land I very much doubt it as on forestry commision land for example all users have rights to be there and to use it as the feel fit.

it might be stupid to wander onto a trail centre trail. It might be unreasonable but it is legal.

hainey – Member
Crikey what did i start?

no no its started before just simmers away until someone posts "walkies" and off it goes

tazzymtb a standard but wrong point will be made shortly – problem is you somehow showed the dog you were scared of it – apparently this is the only reason dogs bite – otherwise the "he/she's never done that before" becomes a problem for the owner

and as to the OP – out running/riding well behaved dogs are the exception but they do exist and i wouldn't deny those people that have made the big effort to train their animals the opportunity to ride with them

I like dogs and am not scared of them in the slightest, maybe it was the shaved legs and lycra it was objecting to?

Lets throw in the fact that if you can't stop for anything you are out of control and therefore a complete f wit. If anyone tried to suggest that I can't take my dog on the trails here in the FoD they would rapidly get the sharp edge of my tongue. I was riding bikes and walking dogs here way before the FC started encouraging the riding.
Having said that of course you are an equal tw** if you put your dog in danger.

I'm a dog lover, if I was on a red or black trail and happened upon a rider with their dog and the dog caused me to come off because it was wandering all over the place, I would be pretty pi$$ed with you not the dog! Don't see a problem with bridleways where visibility is better but a trail centre. I guess its just a matter of common sense.

I don't think showing a dog you are scared of it, is a defence for it biting you or going for you. If its aggressive it should be on a lead or better still at the vets.

I think we need to re-name the trail at Cannock – ermmm "Follow other cyclists exclusively' sound catchy enough anyone?

You're at a location SPECIFICALLY for cycling. Not cycling with dogs. if you want to cycle with a dog, go to somewhere that isnt a trail centre. Everyone expects to see dogs out on normal trails/bridleways, they go TO trail centres to AVOID other trail users and get bike-specific fun. Dont be inconsiderate of them trying to find one spot without other types of users to avoid.

I ride midweek in Delamere quite often with my dog. Its a multi user area and generally very quiet in the week which is why we go then. If i am walking there with the dog, can the lycra clad cock ends that decide to race past 6" from me or the dog please slow down and show some consideration because as has been posted a hundred times above, dogs can be unpredictable so give them room on a 30ft wide fire road where you have been able to see them for a minute before you overtook or just **** off to a trail centre. Thanks. 🙄

So what have we learned so far?

I think first lesson is that it's best to avoid busy trail centres with your dog.

Second lesson is that some people have taken dogs to quiet trail centres or off-peak with no problems.

Next, that if you take your dog riding then you're responsible for their safety and the safety of those who could be affected by the actions of the dog.

Finally, as an aside, that there appear to be people on the forum who assume that the trail centre is there for their sole use and that anyone including the young, old, inexperienced and other slower riders had better not be so inconsiderate as to spoil their enjoyment!

To be fair, mountain biking isn't exactly a sport inundated with hot looking women, so taking a dog just isn't good for male morale 🙂

That'll be the pin pulled and the grenade thrown into the thread then 😯

if you take your dog on the trails then you're a dick

midgebait – that's a reasonable and non inflammatory summary. Are you on the right forum?

if you take your dog on the trails then you're a dick

Crikey, how poetic! 😆

Wow, thanks for your considered opinion caloomba 🙄

Sorry again TJ! Must have been a typo.

Dogs are evil killing machines with owners who train them to attack mountain bikers and then throw bags of dog-s#ite into trees. They should all be put down and their owners sent to live in Lowestoft. The trails are mine and all mine. Anyone who falls in front of my wheels shall be crushed!

Thats more like it!

I tell you what caloomba. Why don't you find someone to help you structure your thoughts and help you write a full sentence? You might even have a paragraph in there 😉

i hav absolutely no problem with it on bridleways etc but i dont really agree with dogs at trail centres, especially when its busy.

Finally, as an aside, that there appear to be people on the forum who assume that the trail centre is there for their sole use and that anyone including the young, old, inexperienced and other slower riders had better not be so inconsiderate as to spoil their enjoyment!

Wrong again. The point was, I'll stress again as it seems to be being missed and mis-quoted; trail centres, or more specifically the red/black areas, are for cycling at higher speeds and not for dawdling round getting in the way spoiling others enjoyment. Anyone not attempting to minimise their impact on others enjoying those sections, or not willing to take the risks associated with it are selfish.

Do you stop mid-corner and wait for friends? Do you crash out and stand in the trail getting in the way of others? Then this complaint applies to you. If not, shut up moaning. When I ride I sometimes have my friends following really closely, if they run me over when I crash do you think I'd be angry? If yes you're not the sort of person I'd like to ride with.

It seems we have more of this and less of this unfortunately.

Lets throw in the fact that if you can't stop for anything you are out of control and therefore a complete f wit.

Yes. I take a drop off, and find mid-air that there's someone sat below it, where gravity is going to dictate that I land. Just how am I supposed to ride slow enough to stop? Oh, I get it, I have to stop first, get off, check noone's sat there, then push the bike back up the trail for another go 🙄

Coffeeking – what about those who ride too fast and spoil others enjoyment by bullying them and forcing them off the trails? Trail centres are not for the exclusive use of people who want to ride fast. All users have a duty to behave responsibly. This is very clear in Scots law.

Anyone not attempting to minimise their impact on others enjoying those sections, or not willing to take the risks associated with it are selfish.

applies to all – not just the slow folk.

Dogs belong on a lead…..also if it sh*ts do you get off and pick it up or leave it for someone else to ride on??

TJ – Scots law doesn't apply everywhere, so stop quoting it as if that's the only location we are discussing.

TJ – we are not going to agree on this one. I AM a perfectly reasonable person, though you're doing your best to make me seem like I'm not, and I think if you asked most folk on the trails they'd follow my train of thought, not "always ride at the speed you can stop at in case there's a moron walking a dog in the way". Needless to say I'm not necessarily fast enough to frequently be in a situation where I can out-pace my brakes in the UK, and I would of course feel very bad if I hit someone who'd crashed in front of me, but I feel no regret in saying you SHOULD be of a certain speed and skill to attempt reds/blacks (which is relatively low in the UK anyway, so not too hard) and that trail centres ARE for cycling fast at, not dawdling round. If they were for riding at the speed you can stop at there would not be half the obstacles and trail features you find that can only be ridden properly at speeds too high to stop in. Plenty of bermed corners that a stray dog could surprise you on, plenty of jumps that need significant speed to clear and fortunately, currently, there's noone standing there timing your runs and spacing people out at fast bits.