No-Cycling signs added to local woods

Home Forum Bike Forum No-Cycling signs added to local woods

Viewing 45 posts - 1 through 45 (of 84 total)
  • No-Cycling signs added to local woods
  • retro83
    Member

    Just rode to my local woods to find that the fence/gates have been replaced and the new ones have no cycling signs up. πŸ™

    It’s a Woodland Trust woodland, has anybody had any experience with this?
    Is there any right to appeal or is it decided behind closed doors?

    As far as I’m aware there are no jumps, berms etc built – it’s just a nice little wood with some paths through it and I’ve been riding there for approx 5 years unchallenged.

    Bloody annoying for me as it’s one of the few local areas to ride with any inclines πŸ˜†

    Premier Icon neil the wheel
    Subscriber

    Surprised at the WT doing this as they are usually relaxed (though not exactly encouraging) about bike access. Why not email them and ask what the problem is?

    z1ppy
    Member

    Ignore them, there close minded idiots.
    Woodland trust, of a wood I ride, put up 6ft fences & tall kissing gate entries to stop cyclist. All it did was to stop families with push chairs, the cycling still continues.

    EDIT: I did email them and got a ‘were not interested in talking’ response

    retro83
    Member

    I will phone or email them, just wondered what to expect from them really. I haven’t heard about any hostility from walkers or horsey types so it’s a bit out of the blue.

    jekkyl
    Member

    is there any bridleways or boats through the land?
    if not you’re screwed.

    Trimix
    Member

    Your not screwed. Just continue to go riding there.

    Dont worry about it, your not doing any harm.

    tk46hal
    Member

    Our local council did something similar with our local woods! Cyclists have been using it for decades but after their alterations with our money decided to stick no cycling signs up everywhere and turn it into a dog mess area instead. People still ride their bikes there and the signs are gone!

    scu98rkr
    Member

    Im a member I say you can ride through it.

    Really us cycling types should try and join the NT + WT en masse and force through a referendum to officially allow cycling.

    Although as a member of both its already unofficially allowed in my book. NT are somewhat better I think, definetly some site you can cycle in.

    jekkyl
    Member

    *they’re &
    *you’re
    several times.

    retro83
    Member

    No bridleways or any other ROWs AFAICT.

    I will continue riding there, but to be honest i’d rather it was allowed or at least not actively banned.

    Annoying that it appears to have been changed without any apparent cause. There is erosion in parts, but it’s people walking around puddles in the heavily walked bits, not the bits where cyclists/horseys ride.

    Edit:
    cheers scu98rkr πŸ˜€

    jonba
    Member

    Try and be nice and find out why, if not just ignore the signs and ride responsibly.

    TooTall
    Member

    Dont worry about it, your not doing any harm.

    He might be. You don’t know that. SSSI for example?

    mrmo
    Member

    Surprised at the WT doing this as they are usually relaxed (though not exactly encouraging) about bike access. Why not email them and ask what the problem is?

    must be a different woodlands trust? ours tried to have a rupp shut down, put up fences, and have contacted the local cycling club telling them to keep out.

    IanMunro
    Member

    Not heartwood forest is it? I know they’ve started threatening to. I’m tempted to cancel my Woodland trust membership, I joined specifically because they seemed to have a live and let live policy with respect to Broxbourne woods, but times seem to be a changing. Of course probably not helped by kids on bikes (and adults that should know better) digging up woods.

    WT are ****, my uncle left them 3/4 of a million pounds and they did their best to pester us until the end of earth to get it. Once they had it, never heard a sausage of what it is they did with the money… Swines! I wanted a Cheshire trail centre.

    The problem is that this sort of sign generates conflict as now the more indignant walkers will feel justified in moaning, blocking you and being selfish asshats. Assuming you ride respectfully then I might be inclined to slip up there after dark and lever them off, replacing them with signs that say ” no selfish asshats”

    matt22
    Member

    The way I see it with things like this is that its just someone elses opinion not mine, So long as im not going to harm anyone then I will crack on , its our Planet

    Some local woods near me have had No Cycling for years Bylaws πŸ™

    Hmm, this is interesting. It’s a bit old, but still hosted on the Woodland Trust website and contains some very dubious statements!

    http://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/SiteCollectionDocuments/pdf/urbanwoodlandguide1.pdf

    Ambrose
    Member

    As something of an anomaly, if you were to visit the Woodland Trust website and find the wood in question you will see that you are able edit the facilities via the blue ‘join in’ box on the right hand side. A friend has thus made his local woods MTB friendly. Not that you should do this

    http://visitwoods.org.uk/en/visit-woods/Pages/wood-details.aspx?wood=4465&site=Coed-Ystrad#.UOG20aytuWE

    Cheeky trails now….

    I’m tempted to ride my local woods at night, I would challenge anybody who stopped me by saying if you stop dog walkers to obey the no dog fouling signs then I will obey the no cycling signs. I really don’t see how I would do any damage if I stuck to the paths as they are well maintained.

    Premier Icon neil the wheel
    Subscriber

    The reason I say WT are tolerant of bikes is because I often see notices forbidding motorcycles and horses but not bikes. If you have used the paths freely for years you could threaten them with applying to the council for restricted byway status on all the trails. The prospect of a long legal tussle might be enough to change their minds about informal access.

    project
    Member

    one by me, a lady stopped me when cycling in there and nicely explained she didnt give money to the woodlands trust to buy the woods, for you cyclists to scare the squirrels and damage the flora and fauna, didnt have the heart to explain to her that squirrels may also eat and kill the flora and fauna.

    Premier Icon The Pinkster
    Subscriber

    From that pdf posted by PDF –

    The increased use of woodland for downhill mountain biking is a less regulated and controlled sport. Part of its attraction comes from the β€˜underground’ image that it currently has.
    If there is land suitable for mogul ramps and jumps, it may be sensible to allow regulated use. It is unlikely, however, that those involved will want any formalised arrangement.

    Try to tap into these groups by talking to staff in the local mountain-bike shop.

    The Woodland Trust has found it best to repair the damage quickly and comprehensively, and to go back again and again if necessary until the problem moves on.
    So it’s OK in someone else’s back yard, just not theirs?

    big_n_daft
    Member

    Arguably a reasonable position, they want a user group that will work with them.

    They have to manage the woodland, is it not reasonable to have a point of contact for mountain bike issues? It doesn’t have to mean death by committee nor liability for everything that happens

    I was intrigued by this statement

    Antisocial behaviour (including lager parties/drug abuse)

    I don’t think I’ve ever been to a ‘lager party’. Do they eject spirit, wine & cider drinkers?

    What a strange term. Although, I have no desire to go to one!

    “Damage” is ridiculous description of some tyre tracks overlying boot prints which seem strangely invisible to officialdom. I’ve had the same predjudice epxressed by English Nature when I asked permission to lead a cycle party on a public footpath on some of their land.

    Sorry, but I absolutely love this one.

    Where uncontrolled angling becomes a threat to wildlife and a major site management issue, the most cost-effective and long-lasting solution is to remove the fish from the pond or water body.

    So, sod the natural habitants, lets remove all the fish so that a few people can’t sit perfectly still whilst making no noise at all holding a stick and a bit of string.

    They seem not to care about the natives, but will go to extraordinary lengths to stop some gnome impersonators. Bonkers!

    amedias
    Member

    that fishing bit is bonkers… by that logic the best way to deal with bikers in the woods would be to remove the woods?

    philbert31
    Member

    The problem is these kind of organisations are run by busy body Noris types who were often taken to the potting shed when they were younger and will do anything to get one over anyone that dares defy them!

    Premier Icon Northwind
    Subscriber

    piedi di formaggio – Member

    So, sod the natural habitants, lets remove all the fish so that a few people can’t sit perfectly still whilst making no noise at all holding a stick and a bit of string.

    Might sound daft but fishing access can be pretty disruptive- damaging to ground etc from access, disturbing other wildlife and can cause site management issues with parking, rubbish and fires etc, and also user contention (because some anglers seem to think nobody else is allowed to come near the water).

    Where uncontrolled angling becomes a threat to wildlife and a major site management issue, the most cost-effective and long-lasting solution is to remove the fish from the pond or water body.

    Won’t somebody think of the Herons?

    Retro83…. Email me an address and I will send you some stickers to improve their signs…

    IanMunro
    Member

    The problem is these kind of organisations are run by busy body Noris types who were often taken to the potting shed when they were younger and will do anything to get one over anyone that dares defy them!

    The great thing about this country is that if you don’t like something you’re completely free to set-up a better organisation run by super-cool types that arrange things so that are awesome to the power of sick.

    Weasel
    Member

    Didn’t you see the sign? It say’s no cycling here

    Yes, shame isn’t it….

    We have some signs round here that say ‘No right to cycle’

    These can be interpreted in a few ways:

    1) the intention the sign putter-upper had, i.e. you are not allowed to cycle here
    2) you can cycle here, but you do not have the right to do so
    3) no, it’s right to cycle here
    4) stay to the left

    I just carry on anyway

    flipiddy
    Member

    The Woodland Trust have become really quite negative about biking in our area of Kent. I don’t know whether it’s an area manager that has a particular grudge, but signs have appeared everywhere. After politely getting in touch to express my thoughts, I received a rather patronising email in return.

    They basically said that they don’t like jumps being built (fair enough) but it’s usually when schoolkids get busy in the holidays… Nothing to do with 95% of the cyclists enjoying the woods who are now banned.

    Needless to say, they are no longer on my Christmas card list! πŸ˜›

    Premier Icon zilog6128
    Subscriber

    I was considering joining the Woodland Trust, due to their work/plans at Victory Wood in Dargate, Kent (which I think is great despite the no-cycling policy) however having now read multiple times about their rude/dismissive attitude towards cyclists I don’t think I’ll bother!

    Premier Icon wallop
    Subscriber

    The language used by these idiots demonstrates how out of touch they are with modern life.

    RichPenny
    Member

    Just continue to use them. The only people who might challenge you are joyless no-marks who can be ignored.

    IanMunro
    Member

    Just continue to use them. The only people who might challenge you are joyless no-marks who can be ignored.

    Hmm. Can’t really agree with that. The local woodland trust lady who does most of the thankless work, work that a lot of people just take for granted, in woods bought by individuals that have got off their backsides and decided they can make a difference has been sworn at several times by bikers when she’s politely pointed out what she believes rightly or wrongly to be the problem with them being where they are. All that’s happening from such episodes is that they get the impression that mtbers are rude, and contribute nothing. Little surprise that we then end up not being welcome.

    I’m going for a walk in my local woodland after lunch with my youngest son as its sometime since Ive been there and it used to be my playground as a child, I will take pics and count how many dog turds etc I see before emailing an inquisitive email to the Warden about their policies. She is a nice lady as I’ve met her a few times through my Sons cub scout days.

    RichPenny
    Member

    Perhaps you didn’t understand my post. I don’t sanction being rude to people, I’d just ignore them If they tried to insist there was a valid reason for someone being welcome on foot and not on a bike. In the woods near me I’ve once strayed into an area where there was good reason for us not to be there and had an amiable chat with the gamekeeper. Happy to listen to reason, happy to ignore NIMBYs.

    flipiddy
    Member

    The local woodland trust lady who does most of the thankless work, work that a lot of people just take for granted, in woods bought by individuals that have got off their backsides

    I can’t argue with this, but for the record, I have volunteered to help out a number of times at local woods in our area, some woodland trust, some not. I was also very open that I am a cyclist that would like to give something back. For some reason, they never seem interested in my help. Maybe the management would feel as if they were fraternising with the enemy πŸ˜‰

Viewing 45 posts - 1 through 45 (of 84 total)

The topic ‘No-Cycling signs added to local woods’ is closed to new replies.