Wow – some fascinating information here: PD Priority Routes (apologies if already posted)
Just scroll down to Chapel Gate, and check out
Action Plan
Management Plan
Monitoring Report
Appendix
Surveys, photos of erosion, geological info, incident reports, and more.

As pointed out above, Chapel Gate is actually the full track, including Rushup Edge climb/descent, as well as the +++++ towards Edale. If only we’d known earlier 🙄

I might be over simplifying things here, as I have only had a quick skim. However, in the monitoring report linked above, it states that the majority of users of the route are cyclists – in which case why not consult with them as to how they would like it maintained?

Also it also stated that over 75% of the folks they interviewed couldn’t think of anything that would have improved their visit. With that in mind, why carry out work which drastically changes the experience of those who visit? Don’t spend tens of thousands of pounds on fixing something that isn’t broken?

All seems a bit daft to me. Admittedly they were doing the survey to identify whether the temporary ban on motor vehicles should continue, but why employ someone to do a survey and then ignore the data it provides when making decisions which will have such a drastic effect in the future?

Just shows that, despite the email responses to the contrary, little or no logic or thought goes into the planning of this sort of ‘repair’ work and they just crack on regardless with what they think is right.

As someone said earlier in the thread, just a typical example of the Nanny state and folk deciding what is best for us 🙁

The ‘alternate’ path is a Public Footpath, not just a cheeky walk-around.

Aye, but the point made by someone else was that the erosion of the main track was causing people to divert onto the bank, I don’t agree and believe that making the main track smooth and fast will cause more people to use and erode the bank.

imo that section of track has not changed at all in the 16 years I’ve been walking it and the 14 years I’ve been mtbing on it. Nor I think has the top top bit.

Some of those step downs look lots of fun but you wouldnt let a beginner roll them?

As a newbie who first rode it in the late 1990’s early 2000’s on a shonky hard tail with rubbish brakes and virtually no skill, I just walked the tricky bits (as mentioned above by Vickypea).
As mention above by onzdog – by riding it many times with better skills and a better bike I finally cleaned it and this is of course how we start to ride tricky stuff.
I still think that DCC don’t give a toss and won’t care what a bunch of mtbers (most of whom take part in other activities in the NP, such as climbing, walking and horse riding) think.

If they carry on regardless then something needs to change. What, I don’t know. But the time and effort that has been spent trying to communicate with DCC, explain our concerns and get them to do something different could end up being a complete waste of time if they choose to ignore us.

They need to be shown that they can’t simply do what they want when so many people oppose it.

Stop saying the didn’t consult! They did, and here are the results 🙄
Table J6 – Factors that would have made the visit more enjoyable
37 Different weather (warmer, sunnier, less wind, ice, snow, rain)
9 No Motor vehicles
8 Better ground condition (less muddy/more grass/less rocks)
7 Better signage
4 Better car parking
4 More trails / bridleways
4 Fewer bikes
3 Fewer people
3 Better gates
3 Rougher route
3 Better erosion control
3 Fewer gates
3 Vehicles allowed
2 Fewer animals on route
2 Pub / tea kiosk
2 Left route alone
1 No walkers
1 Fewer drainage gullies
1 Fill in troughs
1 Dogs on leads
1 More access points for dogs
1 More wildlife
1 Natural Rock
1 Access for people with disabilities
1 Campsite bit poor
1 Toilet at Mam Nick
1 Chosen different route
1 People sticking to the paths
1 Traffic
1 Wish I had chosen a different route

And more:
Table J7 – Factors that made the visit less enjoyable
15 4x4s / Motorcycles
7 Repairs / Improvements to route
7 Bikes on the route
6 Parking / Parking charges
5 Roughness of route / Ruts
5 Drainage gullies
5 Weather
3 The TRO
3 Litter / Rubbish
3 Gates
3 Large groups of walkers / too many people
2 Getting lost / track obstruction
1 Accident on ride
1 High Stiles
1 Scrap cars
1 Spooked horses on route
1 Aggressive farmer
1 Poor campsite
1 Toilets at Edale
1 Puncture
1 Mud

Well, that’s good.

7 Repairs / Improvements to route
5 Roughness of route / Ruts

40% more people think that the route improvements are a problem than think thr roughness of the route is a problem.

^ That poll does not consider anyway near enough people to remove chance. What is the demography of the people asked?

Is there any evidence that the general public, or the users of the bridleway, are pro these ‘repair’ works?

Has any environmental monitoring been carried out quantify the footpath/bridleway erosion?

Good to hear this got some focus on radio Sheffield this morning with simon barnes

I’m not deliberatly trying to derail this thread but…

Stop saying the didn’t consult! They did, and here are the results

What you have there is a survey. Which just an exchange of information.

To consult, you really need to discuss (as per the dictionary definition).

Have discussions with (someone), typically before undertaking a course of action:

Where is the actual discussion on the contents of that survey, and who were actually involved, as that would have been the actual consultation.

Well, my foi request should be answered by the 23rd November. Anyone else had their first response yet?

To answer Edward and Dan and Norbert (edit), those tables are just a small part of the overall consultation process. There was detailed discussion with various groups, such as the Local Access Forum and (presumably) the RoW Forum. This was an attempt to get the views of members of the public outside of these formal groups. If you actually read the documents linked here and elsewhere, you might find answers to your questions.

So mountain-bikers in the Peak District, and elsewhere, might like to think about how they are going to engage in this process in the future. Rather than “shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted”, so to speak.

The lads (and lasses) who have set up PDMTB are doing exactly that, and all credit to them. But what are YOU all doing to support them? (Or in your own local area, if elsewhere.)

(That’s not to say I agree with DCC’s “vandalism”. Something has clearly gone badly wrong somewhere along the line.)

Exactly my point dan1980

They went to the trouble of carrying out a survey of folks using the trail.

This demonstrated that a large chunk of those people were in fact cyclists and that the vast majority of the people they interviewed were happy with their visit.

So instead of talking to this group about the repairs, (or I’d wager, looking at the results of it at all) they just went ahead anyway and decided they’d flatten the whole thing. They then justified this as having to “keep everybody who uses the National Park happy”

There’s no logic to it …

PS.. I’m fully supportive of what PDMTB are trying to do, as I think are most on here?

So mountain-bikers in the Peak District, and elsewhere, might like to think about how they are going to engage in this process in the future. Rather than “shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted”, so to speak.

The lads (and lasses) who have set up PDMTB are doing exactly that, and all credit to them. But what are YOU all doing to support them? (Or in your own local area, if elsewhere.)

If you speak to the PDMTB guys, you’l find that not only do they enjoy wide support from mountain bikers in the area, but they’ve also tried to engage with DCC with very limited success.

What would you suggest that WE should be doing to support them?

Of course we’re all supportive of PDMTB.

But what are people actually prepared to do? Write a letter? Pick up a phone? Attend a council meeting? Or apply to join their local LAF?

It’s not enough to merely think “supportive thoughts”.

Esme, for those of us who haven’t kept abreast of all this who should we contact?

I’ve made a foi request which I’ll share once it arrives. I’ve added to the dcc Facebook page daily. I need to get some emails off tonight.

I’m also wondering how long dcc have to ignore you before you can justify a call to the local government ombudsmen.

Hopefully someone from PDMTB will be along shortly to answer the questions about how to help. But, if you’re on FB, a good start would be to join the PDMTB group. And if you live locally, maybe think about attending any meetings, protests, etc which they need support for.

But more generally, it’s useful to wise up on your own Local Access Forum, Rights of Way Forum, and so on.

The problem with LAFs, as I found when my local one was looking for cycling representation, is that the meetings tend to be during the day, in the week. This came through my local CTC branch (I’m a member).

Even evenings in the week would be a stretch as I have a young family, so by the time I’ve got home, put kids to bed and had something to eat, it’s easily 8pm, so who wants to start a meeting at 8:30/9pm?

We are a disorganised bunch, but given the systems in place only really communicate through official channels, I’d suspect that the current system discriminated against a significant, disparate user group that no attempt has been made to communicate with. So, appeal to the European court of human rights about discriminatory practice, or get involved…

Though it has to be said, a press release to STW would have been more effective than anything else they’ve done as “consultation”.

At last your begining to understand…. Go back and read posts on P15 and 16 about engaging with the LAF… It’s simple really… Find some past LAF minutes and they were extremely positive of the value of mtb and what their needs are in their response to the PDNP cycle strategy

Keiths post exemplifies the general problem…. It is quite laughable of the opinion we seem to have of ourselves here how everyone should come to us….

Il say it again…there are established processes through which the local authority consults…. Other user groups seem capable of engaging with this…. Why do we think we deserve specific treatment??

This sorry tale has convinced me that some kind of organised body is required to represent us all, before it is too late.

So I’d say we need to register with PDMTB and get some kind get ourselves organised and co-ordinated so that we have a voice? Nobody is going to listen to individuals doing their own thing are they?

Peak District MTB

They are a nice bunch. I’d not heard anything about meetings since the first one I went to- are they still going on? I’ve not seen any mention on the facebook page. I was keen to get involved.

Well I’ve just linked this thread to both the MTB and Campaigning sections of the CTC forum, and emailed it to their campaigns department. Hopefully they can offer support and with it some national level clout to PDMTB.

I joined CTC several years ago as they were an advocacy group covering all cycling (Leisure, commute, utility, MTB) leaving BC to cover the racing aspect. It’s a little disappointing that CTC haven’t been all over this frankly.

Re: our ability to engage with the established processes.

Our sport came into the UK about 25 years ago? Generally as a young persons sport. So even if you took up MTBing at age 30, at the dawn of the sport, you’d be 55 now and presumably in Full Time work, nominally with family etc. (kids in uni?) to support so even the “old guard” of our sport are too busy with their lives to contribute.

The oldest active MTBer I know is in his 60s, recently a 2 time grandfather (to 2 of his daughters) and is chief exec of a county council. While it’d be great to have him on a LAF, does he really have the time to dedicate to that?

Other activities with longer established pasts, are more likely to have an active retired contingent eg ramblers.

We should be onto our existing representatives (CTC, BC, IMBA) to be coordinating and organising this in conjunction with local groups like PDMTB.

Sorry, this is a side track from the core issue of Rushup…

Good bit of campaigning there, Keith.
But you don’t have to actually be a member of a LAF to have some influence. Read some recent minutes. Read the Member’s Profiles to identify a sympathetic member, and talk to them IRL. Maybe over a pint, or even better on a ride or walk. They’ll also lead busy lives, so make it easy for them – tell them what the local issues are for MTB.

I think that’s the first time that I’ve seen IMBA mentioned on this thread.

I thought that IMBAUK was originally set up to represent mountain biking in the UK but I’ve not heard them mentioned for some time. Does it still exist as an organisation in the UK these days, and if so have they had anything to say about this travesty?

I think that’s the first time that I’ve seen IMBA mentioned on this thread.

I thought that IMBAUK was originally set up to represent mountain biking in the UK but I’ve not heard them mentioned for some time. Does it still exist as an organisation in the UK these days, and if so have they had anything to say about this travesty?

There was a seperate thread about them earlier. I think with increasing trail sanitisation issues, a central, collective voice such as IMBA may be more effective/popular than it once was. Perhaps its time for another membership push. I actually went on the website earlier and the membership link doesn’t work.

What’s retired got to do with it?? Surely it’s about inclination and wanting to contribute to the greater good?

I’m 31 I sat on a LAF for 3 years at aged 26-29 I wanted to be proactive rather reactive in the access process… It’s just a shame the area where i was didn’t have established umbrellas of RideSheffield and Peakmtb to feed into…

A LAF requires a general comittment of 1 2hr evening session per quarter. Ocassional sub group meetings or site visits. Generally they actually do recognise everyone has homelives and try and accomodate accordingly… But comes back to priorities and inclination again I suppose…

Nice update on the front page. Thanks STW!

Good point about IMBA – not heard anything of them for donkeys years. Having had a quick google, it seems that the last update on the IMBA UK site was Dec ’13 saying they’d basically run out of steam.

A LAF requires a general comittment of 1 2hr evening session per quarter

10.30 on Thursday mornings for PDNPA LAF…

I think the problems is no one’s heard of IMBAUK or any work it’s been involved in. Beyond probably a minority knowing about the trail building document they wrote a few years ago that outlines the best practice for trail centers.

BC are only interested if it’s the olympics or sponsored by Sky.

CTC would be a better bet, but again MTB’ers are probably a minority for them (and they have an image problem).

On the other hand if someone at the CTC was involved it would probably present the most acceptable face of cycling to DCC & ramblers et al as their percieved demographic is ramblers on bikes. Whereas a purely MTB organisation would come accoss like asking Max-Power for it’s input on country lane speed limits.

Retired as they have the time. I would imagine walkers are well represented at the LAF. When you look at the usage report linked to above we as cyclists are the biggest users of that stretch

10.30 on Thursday mornings for PDNPA LAF…

Exactly my point…. The only game in town is one we can’t get to…

Edit: Hence the need for CTC/IMBA et al to provide support and help out be getting people along who can represent our views, through their networks of members/contacts etc. eg: active CTC members are often retired, and while may not be MTBers, could be informed of our needs and represent us?

Piss-poor bickering, people.

Please leave the recriminations until after the real issue has ended (either in total trail desecration or something better). At least it took 15-odd pages for people to start turning against each other. 🙄

What are you on about, dannyh ? All I see is posters discussing what can be done right now, and how this sort of debacle could be avoided in the future. Do you have anything positive to contribute to that debate?

Exactly my point…. The only game in town is one we can’t get to…

Or can’t be bothered to get to? Sadly, unless we are prepared to devote a bit of time to something we care about then it’s difficult to moan when things don’t go our way.

I’m not deeply involved in this issue, other than being interested in seeing how other LAF / user groups are managing their interactions with landowners / authorities. A few on here will recognise me as a member of TAG http://www.trailactiongroup.co.uk and while our issues are over access rather than surfaces, it’s interesting that regardless of who ‘the other side’ happen to be the same issues keep coming up over consultation and a ‘do what we like’ mentality.

I echo what others have said, that we really could do with a national trail advocacy body that could represent the interests of all MTBers and give us a voice that would be recognised and which could speak to and for the majority of users. Until then……. we all need to do our bit.

Whoah!

All I am saying is that it is a bit early to be getting into all the advocacy group stuff and preventative measures for future issues (as well as all the ‘well what have you ever done’ stuff that argument always seems to entail). This thread is titled ‘Rushup edge resurfacing’, that work is still hanging over us, so it is a bit early to start falling out publicly on here.

For the record, I wanted to attend the picnic (and would have driven the 70-odd miles to do so, but I’d already had the previous week off work with no prospect of getting this Monday off). I have fired numerous emails off to DCC, more to East Midlands Today and MBR, put numerous posts on the DCC facebook page and, I hope, spread the word.

Not a lot compared to some, I freely admit.

Please don’t get worked up at me – all I am saying is this is an immediate issue, here and now. Let’s get this sorted if we can – by presenting a united front.

If we want to go down the advocacy group route, then great, but this groundswell of opinion that seems to be influencing DCC has not been the result of advocacy groups – it has been a spontaneous thing caused by DCC going too far.

We can do without re-enacting the Popular Front for the Liberation of Judea scene from the Life of Brian on here.

That is all.

Just text Simon mayo on radio 2 with a 3 worder. “rushup edge destroyed”. Might get us a little more exposure.