So, I was out in the Peak District yesterday. While going up the bridleway from just outside Hope that goes up to Edale Cross I met a couple of Moto-X riders coming down the other way.

We managed a reasonably civil conversation, and they claimed that although it's marked as a bridleway, an organisation called the Trail Riders Fellowship has put in a "claim" for it to be a byway, thus magically making it into a byway while the claim is being thought about by the county council.

Is that right? Sounds truly bizarre.

They also told me that they go round repairing damage done to trails, so I don't want to come over as too moral-high-groundey here.

The ride itself was fantastic, apart from the weird smelly blue/grey powdery stuff half-way down Rushup Edge.

You mean Hope Cross? Edale Cross is the Jacobs Ladder climb from Edale -> Barber Booth -> Jacobs Ladder -> Edale Cross…

I've seen MXers on the Hope Cross tracks many times but I doubt they'd be daft enough to try Jacobs (which definitely isn't byway).

I would be surprised if just making the application rules that they can use it or you'd just apply everywhere but stranger things have happene

I suspect its the roman road that goes up from the Cheshire Cheese to Hope Cross and then joins up with the Beast. Its quite a popular one for MXers, more so the Beast. There's almost always a smashed sign on the bottom gate saying its illegal for vehicles. So unless somethings changed then its illegal for them to be there.

I doubt putting a request for an upgrade makes any differnece, however I've reported people before and feedback from the Police was that as the trail in question was contested due to previous classifications they wouldn't pursue it as it would be difficult to bring about a charge.

I'd hazard a guess that the landowner of the trail mentioned is fairly nearby, knows wats going on and isn't that bothered, otherwise something would've happened by now.

Yes, Hope cross.

I guess if the landowner is happy with it, then it's fairy enough.

I guess if the landowner is happy with it, then it's fairy enough./quote]
not really, its a public right of way, i dont think the land owner has much say on what can and cannot be done there evern though it crosses their land.

They were wrong. The law was changed in 2006 and now if a person uses a motor vehicle on a route and alledges taht there are unrecorded rights they must first show that those rights exist. You should record them and pass that onto the police. See the website http://www.gleam-uk.org which had some very useful resources on it. Go to guidance and see the DEFRA guidance.

CTC is joined by GLEAM in the GLPG

Chris

Thing is though that there are MXers regularly on those trails, but I've never seen the Police there waiting to ambush. IME it would be fairly easy for them to set up an ambush every now and then to put others off. The question is why don't they?

If you have (and I'm not saying they have) the land owners permission then anything is fair game. You could ride your mountain bike down all the footpaths in the world if the land owner says you can.

I sometimes get MXers coming through here. When I ask them what they're doing they tell me they have the owners permission … when I reply that I don't remember them asking me they often get a little arsey 😉

Almost certainly not correct, but live & let live I say, it's not like mtb riders never use footpaths is it?

>it's not like mtb riders never use footpaths is it?

Mtbs don't have a 250cc engine attached.

Report them on http://www.fixmystreet.com

They can be prosectuted under an anti-social behaviour order now. Dont have it too hand, possibly section 59 but can find it at work.

Its also daft from experience how many police do not know this and you can end up doing their work for them…

Stop been gits, as long as they're not running folk over leave them alone – they're having fewer and fewer places to ride.

And once the red socks and eco-warriors have done them, they'll be after us!

Section 59 of the Police Reform Act 2002. Again loads of guidance on Gleam-uk.org

Despite the 2006 Act there are still unsurfaced rights of way such as unclassified county roads that carry vehicular ROW. The unrecorded rights issue doesn't apply here as there are clear historic records of usage as a road. In the past Derbyshire CC were particularly bad at dealing with rights of way because they didn't want landowners complaining even when there was a clear ROW [not just vehicles either]
I always worry when we have these discussions about ROW because I feel it could easily be us next, you know , 'when they came for the communists I said nothing because I wasn't a communist'. I appreciate we've along way before mtbs are banned from trails but divide and rule is always a useful Govt. and local Govt. tactic.

Pieface – Member

Thing is though that there are MXers regularly on those trails, but I've never seen the Police there waiting to ambush. IME it would be fairly easy for them to set up an ambush every now and then to put others off. The question is why don't they?

I was chatting to a Peak District ranger a year or so ago while he drove me back to my car with a broken shoulder. In answer to that question he said that Derbyshire Police had aquired an off road motorbike, and trained an officer to ride it, specifically to tackle the MX bike problem around Ladybower/Hope/Edale etc.

He then told me that the officer had been transferred / requested a transfer to another area and the police in this area had not been allowed to retrain another officer in his place. He also gave the impression that the P N P were keen to takle the problem but the Police simply couldn't be arsed / were not resourced for it.

Fog – not quite right. Unclassified County Roads (UCRs) do not de-facto carry vehicular rights. Again read the DEFRA guidance. UCRs may carry vehicular rights but they need to be each examined on their own merits. UCRs were left out of extinguishment on the 2006 (NERC) Act as they were too complicated/prickly thorn to manage at that time. What is sure is that they all carry 'at least footpath' rights.

If a motorbike uses a UCR then he should first be able to prove that vehicular rights exist (and that they were not extingushed on 2/5/2006).

Chris

AndyPaice – Member

He also gave the impression that the P N P were keen to takle the problem but the Police simply couldn't be arsed / were not resourced for it.

They don't need a specially trained officer on a motorbike to tackle it – there's a tarmac road to the gate at the bottom of the Roman Road and the exit from the Beast is the A57. Sounds like a case of CBA to me

They don't need a specially trained officer on a motorbike to tackle it – there's a tarmac road to the gate at the bottom of the Roman Road and the exit from the Beast is the A57. Sounds like a case of CBA to me

lol, how many police cars do you see on a sunday out round the Peak District. I'm usually out there each weekend and you don't see many. The few who are out there probably have better things to do than chase crossers

My point precisely.

The 'issue' is shirley not big enough for authorities to do anything about. Therefore don't get worked up about it.

If we see justice done to MXers how long before its footpath using MTBers?

I don't ride FPs alot, but find it difficult to understand why a bike can't go where a foot can.

Can't understand your blinkered attitudes. Firstly they're not MXers.They're either almost street legal enduro bikes,or pukka street-legal trail bikes.
I used to enjoy trail riding on motor bikes and we were targeted by the Police. Usually waiting in a patrol car at the end of a trail,nabbing us for illegal number plates….great work!
The TRF are a respected organisation with years of experience in ROW matters.
Your small-minded attitude is similar to the RA's stance,the countryside is for us and not everbody. Shame on you!

yeah i'd agree, i think it's not really a problem for MX riders to be on big wide tracks like that roman road which are mostly made of rocks. can't really see the appeal of bizzling up and down a bridleway on an mx bike,(normally at about two miles an hour) versus going to a proper mx track but live and let live i guess.

ramblers on a power trip being grumpy gits gets on my tits big time. specially when it's on a bridleway so i wouldn't want to be the same with anyone else enjoying the country side.

having said that i do hate it when you get those knobs that rev the engine when they go past you. they could easily flick up some rock off the trail in your face. in fact i've had a quite hostile confrontation with an mx-er before after he did that to me on a climb. i schooled him on the descent to that roych clough ford and had a proper go at him at the gate. he wasn't best pleased and threatened me with violence. what a knob!

I remember being passed by a few motorbikers whilst pushing up Chapel Gate a year or two back. One chap managed to drop his bike sideways and couldn't pick the thing back up as his mates had rode off! Cue skinny lycra clad cyclist helping big burly biker to lift his bike up. Must have looked comical! 😀

Young Dave riley – Member

Can't understand your blinkered attitudes. Firstly they're not MXers.They're either almost street legal enduro bikes,or pukka street-legal trail bikes.
I used to enjoy trail riding on motor bikes and we were targeted by the Police. Usually waiting in a patrol car at the end of a trail,nabbing us for illegal number plates….great work!
The TRF are a respected organisation with years of experience in ROW matters.
Your small-minded attitude is similar to the RA's stance,the countryside is for us and not everbody. Shame on you!

Most of the MX/trail/cross/whatever bikes I see in the Peak don't know how to ride. They go up a steep rocky trail with the throttle on full and get stuck spinning the rear wheel, and **** up the trail. Every now and then you see a rider who goes up a technical trail with little wheelspin and who looks in total control, and does very little damage. Now that is quite impressive.

Also see a lot of groups doinf hill climbs on grass fields off the sides of Bridleways/Byways and doing a huge amount of damage. That's when I ring the rangers and report them.

Not sure where I sit with this. My gut instinct is "live and let live". We all enjoy being in the countryside, some of us on foot, some on pedals and some on an engine. The powered brigade have fewer and fewer places to go…

…BUT in the same way that some bridleways don't easily accept walkers and mountain bikers (e.g. coming down Cave Dale on a bike can be a nightmare negotiating the technical difficulties AND the many walkers), the same can be argued for motorbikes. I've nearly been taken out by a motorbiker when riding around Hollinsclough. He was entitled to be there but wasn't being very considerate of other users of that ROW and it was me who ended up on my arse in the hedgerows. I know, I know, there are always going to be idiots, but my point is that some trails are simply not big enough to be mixed use. I guess that is the argument for some footpaths remaining for feet only.

Andy,ofcouse you're right about the dick-head contingent…and on motorbikes it's very apparent.Riding where they shouldn't,loud exhausts etc… but the countryside is for all of us to enjoy.

I emailed their rights of way person and got this back

If the route is marked as a bridleway, that is without prejudice to the fact that higher rights may exist. If the route has a byway claim then evidence exists to show that it's status is recorded incorrectly, this evidence will have been passed on to the Highway Authority to support the claim for byway status, it can take 20 years for an authority to reclassify a route in such cases.

The Highway Authority have a Duty in law to assert and protect the rights of users. You can understand why some users are sick of waiting for their rights to be confirmed and use route that they know hold rights for them to use.
If it was blatantly illegal then the police and the local authority would have taken action before now

Regards

i struggle a little with the idea that off road motorcyclists have that much in common with cyclists other than that both have relatively limited access to non road rights of way

the big difference is that a motorcycle(i'll try not to enter the mx/pitbike/enduro differentiation)is powered, noisy and travels at speed.

even the biggest wavers of the stw world will find it hard to ride a flat trail at 50mph and create enough noise for people to hear several 100metres away

the regular claims i see on here of "we will be next" will only come true if cyclists side with the off roaders and don't try to encourage discrimination by the public and authorities

here is a simple system

non motorised all crow land and footpaths must give way to horses and ped's

motorised all roads

The route called Chaple Gate, from barber booth has been upgraded to a Byway, but currently the Bridleway signs are still up. Also ordnance survey havn't updated their maps yet. If thats the route you mean, then it is legal to use on trail bikes. So is the unclassified road (UCR) along Roych Clough. Im not sure about the bridleway up to edale cross though – that has been a bridleway (and so closed to vehicles) for years.

Because of trail biking (on motorbikes) being such a contentious issue, most riders know what is and what isn't legal, and stick to only legal routes. They do often organise green lane days, where they repair damaged trails and clear flytipping etc. This happened a few weeks back along a legal route near pindale quarry in the Peaks. See http://www.trf.org.uk/ for more info!

Since 2006, the scope for adding new vehiclular rights of way has been limited. However, byway claims put in before 2006 are still valid, and councils are obliged to process these claims in the normal way, due to European laws. There is nothing odd about this, upgrading a bridleway to a byway is just like upgrading a footpath to a bridleway, and can be achieved if 'higher' access rights can be proven through previous use.

With regards to the organisation called gleam, they are effectively 'poo-stirrers'. They have been known to manipulate the law for their own needs, and have also been caught perverting the course of justice with regards to rigging a rights of way case against two trail riders in somerset, fortunately they were caught in the act and the case was dropped! (not that they would tell you this on their website!)

Trail bikes are noisey, and unfortunately the past time attracts alot of people who act like idiots – a lot more than other recreations do! These are its biggest issues IMO and will unfortunately, one day, kill of trail riding in the UK completely. The argment of damage is pretty feeble, its just unfortunate that whatever routes are open to motorcycles are also open to 2000kg 4×4 vehicles. Also the fact that only around 3% of the right of way network is open to vehicles, so the few routes that are open get over used – imagine if non motorised vehicle users were restricted to only 3% of the right of way network, those routes would get trashed too! The general animosity towards motorcyclists in the UK (both on and off road) is unjustified, but its this animosity and 'moral panic' about motorcyclists from the general public that groups like GLEAM and the Ramblers Association feed off when they try to justify banning trail bikes.

Oliver

And if you don't believe we have things in common with the Enduro/Trail bikers, just wait until the Namby brigade have got rid of the motorized bikes from all the downgraded highways, byways and bridlepaths….we'll be next on the hit list.

These Berghaus clad wanderers are extremists and Janet Street Porter is their leader!

ginsterdrz – Member

Agree with the we are next sentiment and would like to have room for us all but why are so many motorised vehicle/bikers such utter vandals.
You should see the mess being made in our area they will lose access rights for themselves with MTBer protesting.

I've seen MXers on the Hope Cross tracks many times but I doubt they'd be daft enough to try Jacobs (which definitely isn't byway).

I've seen MX'ers at Edale Cross as well as Hope Cross.

I'm aware that some motorised users act like hooligans. The other problem is the issue of trail (motor)bikes having to share all legal rights of way with heavy, wide 4×4 vehicles, i.e. no distinction in the law between different types of vehicles (all just classed as 'mechanically propelled vehicles').
Also, another problem in recent years is pikeys etc getting access to cheap, non road legal pit bikes. To the uninformed, all off road bikes look the same – so everyone is tarred with the same brush.
The uninformed ignorance and 'holier than thou' attitude of some groups such as Gleam and the RA really annoys me – and thats putting it lightly 👿
The TRF (www.trf.org.uk) is the best place to find out impartial information about motorbike trail riding and the use of byways etc.

Oliver

Looking at Derbyshire County Council's website, there's a whole series of claims to turn this bridleway (Roman Road NW to Hope Cross) into a byway open to all traffic all the way to the A57.

The most recent (as far as I can tell) is this one.

It's currently shown as a "Non-compliant claim pending resolution" whatever that may mean.

But doesn't that imply that it hasn't been "upgraded" to a byway?

the legal situation is very messy and outdated and open to manipulation and all i would suggest is that people ensure that their views are represented.

For me a simple guideline would be

human powered ok all CROW land / footpaths

motor powered: no place in national parks / allow other specific venues subjetc normal planning procedures

all mx/legal/enduro/pit bikes sound the same to me and despite trying to be informed i can't tell the difference except by appearance, not outcome, and certainly can't tell if the rider that just blasted past is planning on rebuilding a green lane or not

the "we are next" will only apply if "we" align with the wrong people

The routes through Hope woodlands are definately not byways at the moment. There is however most probably vehicular rights on them, but the whether they ultimately get given byway status is another matter.

The reason people ride trail (motor)bikes within national parks is because national parks often contain lost of unsurfaced roads, i.e. public roads that never got tarmaced, but most still have vehicle rights. Outside of national parks, in more densely populated areas, these unclassified roads have been tarmaced and so loose much of their character.

The difference between MX and enduro or trail bikes is mainly to do with their engine setup and tuning, also MX bikes are not road legal, so can't even be ridden on byways (which are still roads). Enduro and trail bikes are road legal, and you need to hold a motorcycle license to ride one both on byways as well as tarmaced roads. To most people they probably all look the same. They have very different uses though, much like the difference in use between XC and downhill MTB's.

In the future I dont think mountain bikes or other pedal cycles will be banned from trails (not unless they're very sensitive), cycling in general has too much political support from environmental groups.

Sorry for the 'lecture' 😳

Oliver

This may be of interest to you, in todays Guardian,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/mar/21/off-roading-national-park-countryside

C

ChrisE,

I have read the article already. The article is highly misinformed and the TRF have already issued a response to the article here (near the middle of the page): http://www.trf.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=34&t=1976&sid=16aadbf28d3957987cb563b55e2e9c67

Chertpit Lane is currently an unclassified road, open to vehicles – not a footpath or bridleway as the article states. All that has happened is that the route will properly be recorded on the councils 'definitive' rights of way map as a classified right of way. Without doing this, the route could have been lost to all at the 2026 rights of way cutoff date if was not officially classified as a right of way.

Since 2006, vehicle rights of way cannot be claimed through historical cart use, and the evidence presented to support the byway claim was based on motor vehicle use of the route throught the twentieth century, particularly evidence of use within the last 30-40 or so years.

I personally believe that the article has been influenced by an anti access organisation, such as the gleam organisation you have previously mentioned, who have deliberately presented lies and opinions as fact in the article. The TRF response aims to correct the inaccuracies in the article.

Oliver

You wouldn't expect anything written by Roy Hattersley to be right would you?