I had great conversation with a beach warden whilst on the pugsley, on a beach, beside a road that is closed for the summer to create more pedestrian space.

“you can’t ride here, no cycling”
“yes I can, the ban is on the road not the beach. The councils ownership is above the high tide line, the tide goes all the way to the road / prom. ( I was riding at the bottom of a low tide) and therefore you are a beach warden without a beach”.

I poach trails but always politely and discreetly with the most sensitive being bagged in the last moments of daylight midweek whilst not wearing neon, zero skids, try not to leave a mark.

If there is no evidence and no witnesses… Did it really happen?

How do you go about getting rights of way changed????

How do you go about getting rights of way changed????

Downgrade:

Upgrade:

🙂

A few bits of discussion on here about the erosion damage and one or two referring to some research.

Interestingly if you follow that research its pretty thin and really not applicable to UK conditions especially in winter.

I believe bikes cause a similar amount of erosion to walkers in most circumstances – however it varies greatly depending on the ground and loads of factors and at worst is far more damaging than walkers – but at best is less so.

One local trail the bikes cut thru the surface and the next winter water runnoff in the channels created by the bike tyres dug a 3 ft deep trench 🙁

One local trail the bikes cut thru the surface and the next winter water runnoff in the channels created by the bike tyres dug a 3 ft deep trench

Surely a good thing 😉

And I’d like to add that Uncle Jezza is supremely qualified to comment on this subject as he’s ridden down my favourite footpath on a tandem. Nuff respec’

I do miss sfb and the Bogtrotters perspective on footpaths.

binners – Member

And I’d like to add that Uncle Jezza is supremely qualified to comment on this subject as he’s ridden down my favourite footpath on a tandem. Nuff respec’

You didn’t tell me it was a footpath 😯

I fail to understand why these threads create such aggro. Surely all users – foot, bike, MX, 4×4, horses – all need to be sensitive to the damage they create when conditions are worsening. As this is a mtb fourm, then there is no harm at putting the responsibility on ourselves.

The erosion debate is frankly a red-herring. Most of us have eyes, when the trails are wet and you ride them and brake in the scary bits (!!), what happens? We leave a mess. Its pretty obvious. My rule of thumb is, if the conditions deteriorate to the extent that my skills are not enough (and I am leaving a few too may brake scars) then its time to pack in and go home.

None of us have a right to leave a mess – be it litter or tire marks!! So why not just be sensible and sensitive towards our environment? Its just a little respect for the environment and for others.

Well I know its different north of the border mate. And I didn’t want to disorientate you or leave you feeling like you were being oppressed 😉

tomthumb, re your picture. How ***** off does the cattery owner get when you cycle down that tarmaced footpath?. I just ignore him the most of the time, but its was very funny to watch him go bannans.

I fail to understand why these threads create such aggro. Surely all users – foot, bike, MX, 4×4, horses – all need to be sensitive to the damage they create when conditions are worsening. As this is a mtb fourm, then there is no harm at putting the responsibility on ourselves.

I think the majority are sensitive/aware/responsible, but the ignorant/selfish minority have been sufficient in number to create a perception (amongst walkers in particular) that wheels = bad.

The problem is, if a group of walkers has just one negative experience of an MTBer then some will adopt the opinion that all MTBers are just as bad.

It’s the same problem that road cyclists & commuters have – a minority RLJ & use the pavement, and suddenly that’s the only thing motorists & pedestrians think of when they see someone on a bike.

Human nature seems to readily remember the one negative event rather than the other 99 positive ones.

Perception is everything, and once formed is difficult to change.

This also links back to the “riding on footpaths” arguement – if it’s called a FOOTpath then people on foot do not expect it to be used by MTBers or horsists, even if they are permitted by some legal/civil technicality (that most people aren’t aware of, so may as well not exist).

If you’re on a footpath & not on foot then, again, you’re feeding the negative perception of MTBers regardless of how polite and reasonable you are, and regardless of how unjustified the perception may be.

It may have been formed unfairly, but perception is everything.

If we care enough to want these perceptions to change then sometimes we’re going to have to bite our tongues. Or stop using contentious routes & ‘cheeky’ trails Or change our riding habits to minimise damage to the trails when they’re soaked & muddy. And so on.

Or to look at it another way the unfair aspect is more down to the rights that walkers have gained in the first place. Arguably unfairly both in respect to other users and even against the wishes of the landowners. This wasn’t something done as an act of kindness it was done through an act of civil disobedience.

Biting our tongues and keeping off them to avoid giving us a bad name any further does nothing other than keep the situation as it is. Some walkers will remain hating bikes. They moan about them when they see a bike off on a side trail that they never walk on. They moan when they’re on legal cycle paths far away from the walkers. They just moan about bikes.

That won’t change unless we do something about it.

Problem is many walkers are influential and some are in positions of power. All we’ve got on our side is Boris! (and that’s just road bikes).

if it’s called a FOOTpath then people on foot do not expect it to be used by MTBers or horsists, even if they are permitted by some legal/civil technicality (that most people aren’t aware of, so may as well not exist).

It’s the grant of a right, but does not imply everything else is denied. It doesn’t require walkers to be aware of a specific local bylaw or technicality, it just requires them to understand what Public Footpath means. All they need to know is it gives them a right to walk there. Nothing else. They have no idea if a bike can or cannot be there. That’s down to the land owner.

I refer back again to The Hurtwood. “More than 90 years ago, Reggie Bray, Lord of the Manor of Shere, granted the public a ‘right to roam’ with ‘open access for air and exercise’ on the Hurtwood – one of the first estates in England to do so. This set a pioneering example of a landowner welcoming the public on to his land and finding a way of working with the public that would benefit both the land and the people. Open access is available to bird watchers, dog walkers, horseback riders, mountain bikers and anyone who enjoys the fresh air!”

This is advertised fairly well, and most people are aware of it and happy with it, even though there are assigned Public Footpaths on the land, which again are still free access to bikes (with a couple of exceptions that are clearly marked).

What I like about the area is usually everyone gets on with each other, walkers chatting and joking with bikers and others. There are some moaners of course, but they’re the ones that get their name in the papers having rants, not the ones actually out enjoying the countryside.

hehe, i ride where i want when i want, thanks..

joao3v16 – Member

The problem is, if a group of walkers has just one negative experience of an MTBer then some will adopt the opinion that all MTBers are just as bad.

Not that simple though… Because what some people see as completely reasonable can be seen by others as a “negative experience”. So, you can pull over to the side of a path to let someone past and still get an earful. I once got shouted at by a walker who was climbing up hitsquad hill on Glentress red route once, that was good. And you can get told off for not having a bell, or told off for having a bell.

There’s no path of zero resistance so it becomes a matter of degrees.

my opinion which is pretty worthless is ….

ill ride footpaths at night, after dark, after 6pm in summer etc etc…

ill try and avoid doing muddy rides on footpaths, as generally i can find something just as good without the slog, and to not add to the erosion where possible, sometimes this doesnt always go to plan though as i went to do a footpath last week thinking it would be dry, to find when half way through it was pretty much swampy…..funniest thing was, no other tyre marks were there (which would be clearly visible in said spot) and the muddy mess was caused by …..yep you guessed it walkers footprints….obviously a large group had descended/ascended on said footpath and it was buggered after…….

the reason i wont go back to it now is simply because it wont be much fun and i agree that going on it on a bike will cause wear/eroision/damage, but clearly from this experience alone the walkers are damaging it just as much… but

to say that cyclists do the most damage to trail is somewhat narrow minded and not true at all….

i still do try and be cautious/courteous and will not ride these mega cheeky things on weekends etc…..

night time/early mornings and weekend nights/early nights etc are fine in my experience….

have sometimes done the cheeky stuff in the heat of summer in the weekend days when its bone dry and done some stuff i wouldnt normally do in the day on footpaths, but when its running perfect, no damage can be done etc i couldnt resist… i tend not to make a habbit of that though!

ive come across some arses, ive come across plenty of nice walkers also…i just try and be friendly, and say hi, if they dont respond, nothing lost, if they do at least ive shown some courtesy to other users….

https://submissions.epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/3508

“Designating mountain bikes in the same category as horses is wrong and provides a barrier to the lawful pursuit of a healthy past-time. In many parts of the country there simply is not a legal network of trails open to cyclists, or too little to be meaningful. Cyclists should be allowed to use the footpath network to pursue the sport of mountain biking, this would help to promote activity amongst young people, especially as the roads become increasingly congested. Shared use of all paths and trails has been successful in Scotland and could be throughout the rest of the UK. It will spread the density of mountain bikers further reducing the potential for trail conflict and the (disputed) erosive impact of bikes on the trail surfaces. There are no costs involved (we don’t need special gates or access) this is just a re designation exercise to make a bicycle an extension of a pedestrian on the footpath network (with the exception of roadside footways)”

Slightly OT, last night,I saw a police officer on a bike, skid-lid hi-viz etc, waiting for the green man. He was on the footpath, attempting to cross a main road. WTF is all that about?