That there survey about users on blue grade trails

I’m amazed that wheel chair users occupies two of the four top responses and disappointed (though hardly shocked) to see pedestrians in the top two. (I’m dismayed anyone answered kids on [any sort of] bikes).

For my part I answered trail dogs, in keeping with my feelings they shouldn’t be off the lead anywhere other than your own property but…

On a site where “am I breaking the law by riding footpaths” is almost as common as “how much is my bike worth” or “what tyre for…” threads I’m amazed people could resent sharing the trail with other users.

It just seems to illustrate to me why we struggle to get improved access, seems the majority of people don’t want it, they just want better bike access which is to say, worse access for everyone else.

So what am I missing, what’s wrong with finding other people on a trail (especially a blue one)?

Rant over (too much caffeine and a rubbish day I think)

If you build something for bikes and for bikers then it’s probably acceptable to not be asked to share. Would you take a wheelchair round a motocross track? What about taking grandma for stroll round one?

If you want to build something interesting for bikes – which a blue trail should be and it’s probably not much fun for others.

It just seems to illustrate to me why we struggle to get improved access, seems the majority of people don’t want it, they just want better bike access which is to say, worse access for everyone else.

So what am I missing, what’s wrong with finding other people on a trail (especially a blue one)?
What are you missing? People are asking for access to a network of trail that already exists, other people are purpose building new trails for bikes. the 2 are not linked.

Do you have a link to that there survey?

Because it’s dangerous! Kids on mtbs fine, kids on balance bikes, well parents discretion really but ramblers and wheelchairs is just silly really. Plus what do they gain from walking round berms rather than anywhere else?

So what am I missing, what’s wrong with finding other people on a trail

I think, if it’s a dedicated trail, for bikes, then walkers shouldn’t be on it.
By it’s very nature of being a blue trail, it’s geared up for beginners, young ‘uns, novices etc, so IMHO a new ( possibly nervous) rider encountering a walker on possibly a Singletrack section could end badly.

Just IMHO, obviously..

Should probably just make it 2 way trail too…

I think its always very easy for a walker to end up on a bike trail. They just need to come across the bike trail mid-way between bike signs and assume it’s just a path. On that basis it should be expected and you ride accordingly.

Tbh, I come across more walkers on dedicated bike trails at my nearest trail centre, than I do when riding footpaths locally.

I ticked ‘none of the above’.
As long as it’s signposted, I don’t see a problem. It’s only like many other paths we ride.
There could be lots of cases where it’s appropriate – bridges, pinch-points, areas near a visitor centre, etc.

Has anyone ever encountered a wheelchair on a blue trail?

I get peeved at people going slowly, stopping, chatting, walking etc on trails, then remember I don’t own them and despite their inconsiderate actions have as much right to use them as me, and my desire to go fast is no more considerate than their desire to have a picnic on a tabletop.

Apart from the dosy bird who stopped infront of me on the table top on red-15 at Swinely, there’s a special place reserved for her in the afterlife/IKEA on a bank holiday, it’s not even a long enough section to warrant stopping, let alone stopping on top of a jump, at the bottom of a very fast run in between two trees.

Do you have a link to that there survey?

Here

I think its always very easy for a walker to end up on a bike trail. They just need to come across the bike trail mid-way between bike signs and assume it’s just a path.

I think every trail I’ve seen has a sign at all the intersections, if people are romping through the hills off paths and finds a bike trail they should be up for what they find 😉

And hitting GT blue when I was last there (mid week) coupled with the great sight lines I was certainly letting rip down there…

Has anyone ever encountered a wheelchair on a blue trail?

Pfft they use the reds at Cannock

Last year we had to stop and carry a BIG bloke in an electric wheelchair uphill back to the fireroad

Wheelchairs, horses, kids, dogs, werewolves, yetis, aliens, cucumbers, wild boar, unicycles you name it we’ve got it. And on Thursday nights they ride the trails in the reverse direction ffs

Maybe it’s a Scottish thing, but I don’t feel comfortable trying to exclude anybody from “our” trails. Yes, they may have been built for bikes, but the stalkers’ paths were built for stalking, the forest tracks were built for forestry, the farm tracks were built for tractors. I ride all those and lots of other tracks built by and for other users. So, if they want to use “bike” paths that’s fine by me. Most of the more interesting ones aren’t much fun for any other use, but unless the course is taped off for a race you should always be prepared to meet other users I reckon.

also remember 2 women on horses heading off down one of the cannock trails, they thought it was a great idea…

What the OP said. Apart from the bit about dogs.

I answered the ‘none of…’ based on my riding as much on footpaths as anything else. The world is a big place and if you can’t stand finding folk in the countryside in places they ‘ought not be’ then you probably should lock your doors and stay home.

Depends where you are I guess, but at Glentress there are walkers paths and bike paths, I certainly got a bit peeved when a couple were strolling hand in hand down berm baby and refused to move off the trail on a Sat afternoon..

also remember 2 women on horses heading off down one of the cannock trails, they thought it was a great idea

bless ’em

Not that unusual tbh allegedly the MTB trails are rather appealing to our equine brothers and sisters they would like something similar where their horses can canter for a bit and jump over the odd log or two instead of plodding along the fireroads in a cloud of insects

Cuts both ways. Many of the walkers paths at GT are frequently used by bikers.

Isn’t the point that a trail centre is about the only place you can be reasonably assured that you can open it up a bit? I wouldn’t ride my bike along a UK Chasers course. Or if I did and got kicked by a horse I wouldn’t complain about it. I keep off the Plain when the tracked things roll into town.

I find it very difficult to believe people accidentally stray on to any of the centres I’ve visited with no idea bikes might come whizzing past.

It’s not related to shared access as this is clearly somewhere defined for a specific purpose. If such trails were made shared access I’d probably never use them, and I suspect I wouldn’t be alone in that.

yep scotroutes, but they refused to move, that was the issue, not that they were there! If I cycle on a footpath I expect to give way to pedestrians, so would have been nice if they stepped aside and let the bikes past?!

Very strange poll.

You’d almost think they were trolling.

Not a blue trail, but a closed course but also what could happen…

Too late to add e-bikes as a category for voting ?

Never take polls at face value. I ticked none of the above AND six others because it let me tick any seven of the eight.

Object to? none

Feel they really should ask themselves is this the right place to be? Several, though I did just take a couple of children down an alpine red DH. But it’s more that I wouldn’t want to see people getting themselves into a situation they couldn’t get out of – and that applies to all the options plus mountain bikers.

I’m now bound to be overtaken by a human powered wheelchair shortly, and if they can do that, fair play.

Is there an option for chavs on pit bikes going the wrong way .?
I objected to them rather forcefully, they didn’t consider that they were in the wrong at all…

Isn’t the point that a trail centre is about the only place you can be reasonably assured that you can open it up a bit?

Nope, the tracks may have been built for bikes but they are (at least FC ones) pretty much open access to other users and you can be reasonably assured that other users WILL stray onto them. Might be different at places like BPW or private land though.

‘Open up’ by all means, but only within reason ie: when you have good sight line, stopping distance and be prepared for walkers/horses/wheelchairs/cows/children/trees/whatever.

If you want to be assured that you can go balls out on a closed track then racing is pretty much the only time you’ll get it, and even then it’s not 100% assured!

Object to? none

Feel they really should ask themselves is this the right place to be? Several

Very much this, have politely suggested to a few people in the past that they might want to reconsider or take an alternative route as they have strayed onto a bike trail and they might come into conflict if not careful.

That is not the same as objecting to them being there though, they are ‘trails for us’ but they are not ‘our trails’ (with us/ours being bikers)

I voted no objection. Mainly because it stipulated Forestry Commission blue MTB routes.
This is in principle that if it is signposted as an MTB trail other users of the trail that weren’t on MTB’s would offer the same courtesy that I would if I were riding on an FC footpath, as in yield and pull over for other users.
In the spirit of wanting open access for all.

If a trail is graded, then it implies it is in a trial centre, and as a result its a bit dangerous for non-cyling users to use it, and on that basis I would object, mainly for their safety. I wouldn’t hate them though.

igm – Member
Object to? none
Feel they really should ask themselves is this the right place to be?…
… But it’s more that I wouldn’t want to see people getting themselves into a situation they couldn’t get out of – and that applies to all the options plus mountain bikers.

I entirety agree with this, it might not be “fun ” or appropriate for those others but it’s not my decision it is theirs.

As for the what might happen posts, I’ve ridden plenty of trails, both at centres and elsewhere, where the problems you’re worried about have come from plowing round a corner and finding variously, downed trees, downed cyclists, missing bridges and in one case a very startled deer. I also have a friend in the states who purportedly -I am not a witness – found an angry moose on a trail at one point, apparently turning round and going the wrong way was a better option. All these things are at least as troublesome if not more so than a walker, wheelchair etc.

Kids on bikes? It’s a blue trial, exactly where they’re supposed to learn the skills that make us other people awesome riders. Even in reds or blacks, you should be able to deal with the problems you’re likely to encounter, including other users. Essentially if they’re a problem for you to deal with you shouldn’t be there. (this is not to say I support parents who drag small children places those children don’t enjoy/aren’t comfortable, that’s a whole different sin, and one I regularly see at trail centres.)

Designed for bikes? You mean in the same way any road which hasn’t been there for 70+ years is designed for motor vehicles not bikes? Any road upgraded in the last 70+ years is designed for motor traffic not bikes pedestrians? Deciding you’re building something for user group (a) doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be used by group (b). If anything it means group (a) should be more aware that it’s not exactly wonderful for group b, but that they will use it anyway and, if you encounter them, allowances should be made.

All in all it boils down to respect for other users to me.

The designations of our PRoW network are seemingly arbitrary (I assume some process was adopted beyond looking at a map and saying, path, path path, bridleway, even if it doesn’t look like it now), but so is thinking I’ll build this for [bikes].

As for trail centres being the one place you can really ‘let rip’ I’d expect entirely the opposite, I’d expect busy trails with lots of mixed skill users by comparison to say a BW or FP in the middle of the moors.

every time a parent pulls a kid out of the way of a combat warrior and apologises a trail fairy dies – fact

Cuts both ways. Many of the walkers paths at GT are frequently used by bikers.

Maybe I’m a closet fascist, but when I am walking in GT I do object to bikers on the specific walkers trails. Something like BBB is so obviously a bike trail, why would you want to walk down it anyway, it just seems deliberately perverse. I mean having a picnic on the North Shore. Fair enough, why else would they have these long winding tables in the middle of a forest? Respecting other people’s space isn’t something we do well here.

mikewsmith

Not a blue trail, but a closed course but also what could happen..

Not quite. That’s Vic Park in ChCh.

That is a blue trail (yes, with a big gap jump and chicken line). There are dedicated walkers trails and dedicated cycling trails criss-crossing vic park. There are generally signs at the head of each one and at every intersection. The signs are generally instructing walkers to give way to MTBs because they’re moving bloomin fast (in may case about half of Wyn’s speed…) down steep tracks.

That particular section of open track is incredibly well used (almost all the DH tracks funnel in to it) and is crossed by a walking track. In that location I think (having walked there to watch some racing) I think there aren’t any signs!!!

I will confess to have ran around the blue trails at Pollok Park in Glasgow. It’s not FC, I did still question whether I should be there at all, I ran the trails in reverse so that I could quickly jump out the way of any MTB’ers that turned up (maybe I only did it at the right time of day as despite doing it a dozen or so times I have only met two folk), and even so the nagging feeling that it was a small fraction of the park for MTBs I may as well leave it to them and so eventually changed to use other bit of the park instead.

Being in Scotland I wanted to vote None of the above, free access to all and all that. But being honest I would object (silently and behind a cheery “hello” of course) if I met up with ramblers so voted for them.

I clicked on several of the buttons on the survey – not because I don’t want those folks to have access, or I feel that bikes should have better access than wheelchairs or walkers, but because of safety concerns. One of the main aims of any decent trail centre is to try to separate bikes/horses from walkers/slow moving traffic to improve safety and reduce accidents.

There was a biker airlifted off the blue trail at Antur Stiniog a couple of weeks ago. That highlights the speed that people are (rightly) riding down some of these specific trails at. Walkers/wheelchairs/kids on balance bikes etc on such trails is just asking for an accident, and therefore should be avoided IMO.

Maybe we’re talking about different types of trails. I’m not talking about banning anyone from double tracks, footpaths, walking trails, open rights of way etc – only bike specific trails that are designed for MTBers to hoon round berms and get air on tabletops etc.

I’d strongly advise walkers against it if I saw them there (as I have), but I feel as though once I’d done that I’d be ready to move on with my life.

I mis-read the question as whom would I most like to see more of… hence at least one answer in favour (against) kids!

I felt bad afterwards, but can’t retract my vote!

One of the main aims of any decent trail centre is to try to separate bikes/horses from walkers/slow moving traffic to improve safety and reduce accidents

This is indeed #1 priority at Cannock

The most recent survey put bike use on the Chase 3rd behind hiking and dog walking. Nearly everything that’s happened to the trails whether it’s a new feature or a new section is to keep bikes away from other users. The exit of every section onto a fireroad is either uphill or a tight turn

The public liability is enormous.

Would you walk the dog on a municipal football pitch while a game is being played? Same thing in my view.

6 Land over which access rights not exercisable

(1)The land in respect of which access rights are not exercisable is land—

(e)which has been developed or set out—

(i)as a sports or playing field; or

(ii)for a particular recreational purpose;
LR(S)A 2003