Realised that I didn't origianlly mention that the Turner is dark blue (mainframe).

This all happened 4am (ish) on Tuesday, 20 July.

Yorkshire Evening Post have been in touch for details so hopefully that might generate a bit more exposure.

To everyone for that's posted positive words here and the email offers of help and support, thanks. If I wasn't such a big rufty tufty I'd be moved to a little light eye dabbing ;-)

Cheers all 8-)

I'll put it another way, I would support trail development for use by all, rather than just for sole use by riders. That doesn't equate to motorways, in my eyes.

It would be unrealistic and (even less) likely to suceed (IMO) if it was badged as exclusive MTB development.

TBH, all I'm thinking of is taking out some of the worse (durability / pass-ability-wise) sections, creating or improving other linking pieces so there's a more distinct loop. However, this is all based on the existing tracks that are there and being ridden already. Just trying to make them fit and work together better. And, of course, making their use by riders legitimate, rather than a some fudge of permission / tolerance / blindsiding.

Not everything has to be purpose built or even built to be sustainable to be enjoyable to ride.

Sure, but if it stands up better and is more "passable" then that's an improvement AFAIC. Tracks, trails, RoW etc all change, evolve and degenerate over time. The track below the Viewpoint / next to the tombstones got surfaced a couple of years ago. IT's not as fun to ride but then it was probably never legit anyway plus it's not just about us riding it. Over time this will revert to something more interesting I'm sure.

I don't deny it's already quite a honey pot, however, having ridden there for a few years myself I think there's room for some improvement to make trails a bit more sustainable in places[/i]. Agree as well that trails should be multi-user.

Done.

Cheers.

Fat Lad, if you want a copy of the sheet I used to work out the bike value / list the parts just shout, happy to email you one.

Killed time doing it whilst waiting around for various people / contractors yesterday and someone else has already said it's handy and quick.

The two things I've noticed since this is that I didn't take enough photos of the bikes to be able to ID them (must put them on this thread) and I didn't have the Turner's Frame No.

3 bikes? wow. it is a big lost. i hope u find them!!!

TBH that wasn't all of them although they were the best / most expensive. The rest are out of the garage in a secure place. Unfortunately the garage is a store for the rest of the house (wife and 2 kids) so there's plenty of stuff that might take a scrotes eye.

Either they had checked it out first or they thought they hit the jackpot when each one of them managed to ride off on a very sweet bike.

Clunts!

Fat Lad – sorry to hear that fella.

Bakes – can you let me Dango Davidson's email? I really liked that Kobe.

Sadly I missed the fact in my policy that the maximum value which can be claimed for theft from outbuildings is £3k. Totting up for the insurance claim I reckon there might have been nearly double that in the three that were taken. Arse!

So, not only will I now be paying for an alarm system covering both the house and garage but I'll also be pricing up ridiculous levels of insurance to cover the remaining bikes / replacements.

Hey ho.

Cheers guys. It's just stuff, there's much more important things in life. Just if I wanted to give away £X,000 I would have done so to charity, not the scrotes ;-)

I'm going to email all the local shops (in the off chance the thieves are totally stupid) and forums.

Keep an eye on Ebay and Gumtree.

Any other suggestions welcome

We have a possible route, tentative costing, local council support etc, so reasonably positive so far. However we have now been told by some management people (I'm not going to start naming names!) that "the cycle routes (fireroad) is perfectly adequate, and there is no demand for any more. Also there are very few people cycling in the Chevin."

The upshot is I now need to go a meeting (December!) and could do with a load of names to show support.

Doesn't this represent the sort of dialogue you're talking about? I think "petitions" got thrown in the mix later by others (haven't re-read to check). Matt seems to have been asked to get some informal user numbers / head count of enthusiasm by the people you are advocating he get in touch with.

As I said, we're (SingletrAction) all up for supporting Temple Newsam (and Chevin plus whatever else comes up). Just give me an email address or contact.

I'm not looking to argue over the internet though, just trying to talk positively about things I think could be worthwhile 8-)

Do you have a contact? I can't see an email addy in your profile. You have mine, above, if you'd like to get in touch.

You're obviously making comments from a position of knowledge there so I am at somewhat of a disadvantage, however, I don't think money is such a big issue. There's ways to make limited funds go further, certainly if you don't employ consultants and the like. There's already a lot of track in there of varying constructions that, with a little judicious work, could be linked up.

Phased and incremental development through a volunteer group could achieve a huge amount over a reasonable timescale given very limited monetary and technical support. I make these comments having looked at potential routes in the woods with Matt and others and after a number of years experience trailbuilding / designing at Stainburn and other locations (through SingletrAction).

Admittedly, if Leeds want to achieve everything in a few months through a contractor it'll never go ahead. However, I don;t see why that should be the only / preferred route for trail development.

We (SingletrAction) have been talking to Matt and others about it on and off for a couple of years.

I know Knacker / Craig has been talking to Ed @ Crosstrax regarding our support of Temple Newsam. Not heard anything much about it recently. If someone can get in touch direct then SingletrAction will happily support it as best we can.

I hope as you are looking to develop this for some kind of Chevin cycles benefit you might be able to look beyond your shops own benefit for the greater development of cycling in Leeds

I see Chevin getting involved in this as being a positive thing. It's in their backyard, they're as representative of cycling as anyone else, they've talked to us and others for help and advice, it's something where they have self-interest which is more likely to give some sense of ownership and drive to make things happen. I don't see that as a negative (as your quote seems to imply?). Hey though, the internet is an awful medium for communication 8-)

Anyhow, always happy to talk to anyone about cycling development opportunities.

Tim, Chairman, SingletrAction
chairman@singletraction.org.uk

Matt

I think they're being a bit selective in their statements. I was out there Sunday and I saw half a dozen bikers. Tracks throughout the "less legitmate" areas were clear, there's a few jumps in the lower areas too. Many people ride sensitively there to avoid walkers and the high density of people the place can attract at "peak hours" (bikers often avoiding it entirely). A lot of folks use it as a night ride venue for these reasons, they also use the less frequent areas and are particularly careful about straying over to the end beneath the pub (although I know this gets ridden a lot), particularly the stuff from the viewpoint to the bend in the BW that leads down to East Chevin Road.

If you need help putting stuff (evidence) together then shout. If you want company for the meeting (and I can make it) just say.

The North Leeds thread on Bikemagic could be a good place to harvest people from. Many of the guys on the SingletrAction site ride there too.

Weren't there issues many moons ago about illegitimate DH? Not great supporting evidence but clear that people do ride there and there is a history.

Might need a little bit of care in presentation otherwise someone anti might pick up evidence and say the "less legitimate" use ought to be acted upon. However, as it's always been quite sensitively done that would seem unfair.

Tim (SingletrAction)

Narrow bladed screwdriver under grip edge, slide in straw off can of WD40/GT85. Squirt a little in. Pretty quickly gives slack under grip, either work it round or push straw in further and/or add another squirt. Keep going and they soon slide easily off.

I wouldn't (personally) cut off as it'd probably score the underlying metal with the blade tip. Not saying this is significant but I'd rather avoid doing so.

Discard new packet of regular grips and go spend some more money on lockons, just a whole world easier and quicker. IMO life is just too short to fanny around with "old style" grips / hairspray / spray paint etc ;-)

I've recently had a trial HT badge made by Geoff for SingletrAction.

Very nice.

Wind up, right?

Demonstrated competence or the ability to develop it? Like I said, it only bugs me when certain people tell me we can't do things because we're not competent. I'm not being all p1ssy about it, just don't like something perfectly sensible (the Regs) being used as a cloak to achieve an alterior purpose ;-)

From the ACOP (and yes, I'm being selective ;-):

Remember the assesments [competence] should focus on the needs of the particular job and should be proportionate to the risks arising form the work. Unnecessary bureaucracy associated with competency assessment obscures the real issues and diverts effort away from them.

On a non-notifiable you've got Client, Designer and Principle Contractor. I don't see why a volunteer or group couldn't occupy any of those positions. We can commission a contractor to do a build (i.e. Client), design a trail (Designer) and build it (Principal Contractor).

The designations relate to function, not type of organisation.

Domestic clients are exempt from the Regs but don't think this would apply.

I'd be interested to know who your expert is and on what he based his advice. In an honest, curious way.

I'm a registered CDM-C but not an "expert". Like I said, always looking to learn. If it's better direct then timsellors@googlemail.com

Cheers 8-)

We (SingletrAction) have built 2 and are working on a third with a planned rebuild of Stainburn and an extension nearly complete at Buck Woods.

McCormack's book is excellent.

Plan and scratch out the shape
Drainage.
Build up from ground level (out of standing water).
Build the berms first, then fit the rollers.
Don't put the rollers too close together (peaks at least a bike length and a half apart).
Drainage.
Build it with mineral soil, either the local ground or import (some Quarries do reclaimed soil which can be cheap, c £6/tonne).
Get some decent tools (long handle shovels, rakes, tamper, barrow etc)
Drainage
Dig efficiently
Water it in and pack it down
Wait
Ride
Refine
Loose dirt packs down by 25 to more like 50%. Build as big a pile as you can.
Drainage

Not knockingthe DJ folsk and it depends what sort of PT you want but think smooth and flowing and don't go too huge. Rollers don't want to be big and peaky. A straight of 3 or so well shaped, 300 to 450mm high can build massive speed.

IMO you don't need a roll in. If you've got one then great but if you have to build it then it's a lot of effort for something not essential.

I've never been called "concise" before. I just go on and on and on and on …….

To trade links:

http://www.hse.gov.uk/construction/cdm/acop.htm

This is the Approved Code of Practice (ACoP) i.e. the layman's handbook. Apologies if you already know it. It also includes a copy of the Regulations themselves at the back.

See pp2, para.6 "The regulations apply to all construction work in Great Britain …..". A definition of "Construction Work" (and the pretty narrow exemptions) are provided later in para.13.

Not trying to be subjective in my quotes but I can only be arsed to type so much.

I honestly can't see how you draw the conclusion that just because a job is simple or small scale they don't apply. Not looking to be argumentative, just honestly disagree on professional experience (no, I am not using the "but I'm an engineer" line ;-)

If you look in the ACoP at page 5, para.23 there's a table summarising duties under the regs with two columns headed "all construction projects …." and "additional duties for notifiable projects …". There are differences between the two and it's a simple test, last longer than 30 working days or involve more than 500 person days (basically just setting a "size" threshold for when you have to tell the HSE in advance, appoint a CDM-C, etc etc then it's notifiable.

But that's very different. As I say, my understanding / interpretation is that the Regs apply to all construction projects. I'm not arguing that's appropriate although (TBH) I think it is.

Don't think it matters whether it's reactive work either. Maintenance is very specifically covered:

Regulation 2:

"Construction Work" means the carrying out of building, civil engineering or engineering construction work and includes –

a) the construction, alteration, conversion, fitting out, commissioning, renovation, repair, upkeep, redecoration or other maintenance ….., decommissioning, demolition or dismantling of a structure.

To me that includes all trail building whether it be creation or maintenance work.

You may as well ask them to undertake a fire risk assessment too as well as surveying for asbestoes.

That's a pretty common misconception (like it is about most H&S). No offence. RA and MS only need to be undertaken appropriate to the task in hand and in a manner proportionally responsive to the signficant risks. If a bloke's just going up a ladder and slapping render on then all he needs to be competent for is working up a ladder with the right tools. You don't have to write everything down but if asked you need to be able to demonstrate you knew he was OK for the job.

Hey, I'm off on an uber-geek H&S fest here aren't I ;-)

CDM Regulations apply to all "construction" projects. Maintenance is construction under the Regs (see Regulation 2). There are some exemptions but they don't exclude vounteer projects, volunteers themselves or maintenance activities. I'm not aware of any exclusions base don the size of the project. I'm always up for learning more though.

The main differentiation between projects in the Regs is when they are either notifiable or non-notifiable. I'm still not sure how you'd treat a long running volunteer project in this case. Whatever, the basic principles of CDM regs still apply.

it's there to prevent people/ organisations who aren't competent doing things

Sort of, but you can be appointed without being competent in the specific thing, but so long as you have the structure to develop the competency in a planned and controlled (therefore safe) manner. Sorry, it just bugs me when people say "you can't do it because CDM says you have to be competent".

Besides, there's also different competencies required for a designer or a builder. I reckon most anyone can be easily be shown to be competent at swinging a shovel and /or pushing a barrow.

volunteers cannot occupy a responsible position

Really? I'm honestly interested, can you tell me where it is in the Regs?

T 8-)

Presumably Lancs CC will have to find a way to work with those 'gifted amateurs' or the trails will fall apart.

the "gifted" amateurs will need to demonstrate "competance" as required by CDM, the only group that does it is SingletrAction who also admit they have an insurance policy that no-one else will be able to get. (I am happy to be corrected if I misrepresent them)

We have a third party insurance policy that FE insist we have for working on their sites. We are extremely fortunate that FE support us (in one of several ways) by arranging and paying for this policy. IIRC (I don't have docs in front of me) it is through / underwritten by Zurich. AFAIK the policy is no longer available and we still have it by virtue of the renewal premium being paid every year, so the policy continues to roll on. Result 8-)

I hope I have not said no one else will be able to get insurance as I have no way of knowing. I will admit I concentrate on many other things and am (possibly a little blithely) happy to just know it is there. I have little / no real knowledge of insurance policies for this sort of thing.

Plus, it only covers for injury of people as a result of our works / during them. It doesn't cover members injuring themselves and it doesn't cover ultimate users of the trails we build.

I'm a register CDM Co-ordinator. I think the "competence" issues is a red herring. The Regulations clearly allow for someone doing a job and developing competence, rahter than having to be completely competent before attempting it. This is appropriate otherwise it would be a ridiculous chicken and egg situation.

I hate to let this slip but trail building isn't rocket science ;-) With enough planning, care and effort volunteers are absolutely fine to build most stuff (within reasonable limits). I wish more riders would try it and help develop trails that don't need big budgets etc. We could deliver an awful lot more ourselves for much less money IMO.

There are obvious, practical limits and I'm not sleighting anyone for using contractors etc. It's all "tools for the job in hand".

anything is possible, but it's a dangerous site with multiple user groups and a cautious landowner. Whoever comes forward will need to be organised, competant and insured.

Without wanting to sound arrogant but I reckon we tick all three boxes there. I've talked to Tony a bit. I think it'd be great if somehow we could team up at Lee Quarry etc. I think it could benefit us both. We're already talking to Jon at Gisburn and Ed O / Tim (D&P) re the skills area. I hope we can provide a framework (website, forum, experience, occassionally bodies etc) to help these sorts of projects.

We are just an umbrella organisation for local people to make things happen. However, MTBers are / can be very parochial and single minded (to the point of bloody obsession ;-) You mention our name sometimes and people virtually spit, saying stuff like "we don't want a bloody Stainburn or Dalby here". I think that just shows they don't understand the group. I / we just want to help people achieve it through their own steam and efforts.

Additionally some work will require machinery due to the large weight of some of the items that make up the trail.[/qoute]

Fair point but, TBH, how much more "big stuff" needs shifting? Besides, use a conbined approach where machines do the bits they have to and let a team of volunteers do all the bits in between.

IMHO the key is to demonstrate value for the area so that they want to maintain the facility hence the comments above

Sounds good and others have made positive suggestions. It's a bit contrary to the Brit' psyche though to write congratulatory letters to "faceless" madarins in authority ;-)

Then again TOny's lovely and I'm sure he'd forward it on 8-)

I'm always up for helping: Chairman@SingletrAction.org.uk

Tim 8-)

I'd recommend 6 ft plus scaffold poles with a pinched end over those skinny ones you're using there (is that real a bunch of UK volunteers all kitted out in hard hats?). Plus long straps are magnificient for wrapping round rocks and dragging them about. They let more people to get purchase whilst simultaneously avoiding loads of fingers and limbs in potential crush areas / situations.

Just a thought 8-)

Certainly in the Forests of Yorkshire managed by FE there are no bike specific / exclusive trails. FE's policy is not to prohibit use by walkers (and therefore their mutts) and other legitimate users (I think this excludes horses and, almost positive, MX). I suspect it's the same in Jockland.

Tough titty really. I'm prepared to share and share alike. As always there's a time and place but generally I don't care.

Turner recommended the Double Barrel as "high zoot" (WTF) when I asked the same question. OR the RP23 as it just works really well.

http://www.singularcycles.com/gryphon.html

As to why you might want to ride off-road with drop handlebars, there are a number of good reasons.

A more natural angle and position of the hands, allows you secure purchase on the bars without needing a death grip.
A more secure feeling on the bars, no tendency to slide off the front. In rough terrain the hands are simply forced further into the hooks.
Variety of hand positions. Riding long distances with the hands in one position can cause them to become numb. Drops allow you to sit up and ride on the hoods or the tops to rest both hands and body.

Sure, it's a 29er but I don't think that really matters to the general thrust of the points.

I rode one round a few bits of Lee Quarry at the Weekender. It was great, including in the drops over the rock causeway.

I went all Victor Kiam as well :poor now:

I suspect (knowing little about it all) that it's more about running drops with 26 wheels on a bike that's made for the purpose. Like most things, trying to shoe horn drops onto bikes nowadays that are set up to run big forks and have fairly "sit up" positions (hence a higher headtube) probably isn't going to feel great.

Plus, I imagine drops and suspension forks are likely to feel weird, especially when you're in the 125 to 150mm travel bracket.

Lee McCormack mentions that human nature is to protect your head. Sticking your head low and forward, especially in steep situations, is counter-intuitive. It's something he recommends working through to master the attack position. I'd guess drops would make working against these natural instincts even harder.

Edit – they were flared bars as well, rather than being true roadie drops. Fairly broad as well.

EBC also do their own scheme specifically because, as a business, they can't stand the thought of Cyclescheme skimming 10%. As such they have (alledgedly) become quite a big provider to some major public sector organisations of Cycle 2 Work bikes (Health Trust etc).

Sounds like EBC and your boss think alike ;-)

Give them a call and ask, their rang is pretty good although I only go in one northern shop (Specialised Tricross in carbon, Genesis Crois de Fer) and plenty of MTBs as well. I imagine the shop might not be packed out with stock but they can get hold of an awful lot more.

Shimano website and relevant tech sheets?

Usually putting the part number in their search function gives you good links.

All I know is make sure the little marker is in the dead centre of the windo to ensure cable tension is right.

Bepanthen is better than sudocreme IME :blush:

Pry/wrecking bar, long handled grafter, pruning saw and axe. MTFU and dig it out (have done lots during trailbuilding) or pay daft money to keep your hands (relatively) clean and not ruin the manicure ;-)

I find most helmet cam stuff boring to watch. Each to their own.

A mate did mount one off a stick from his helmet so the static point was his head whilst the bike and trail whizzed by. Was more entertaining but I think the main reason I remember it is his crash into a tree at the end and the subsequent footage of him staggering about, probably mildly concussed and given the camera set up looked v.weird indeed.

Good job he laughs about it too.

If the current scheme was meant for that purpose it would be doing a crap job. Not accessable to all (those who don't work for an employer in the scheme, children, retireds etc) and the more you earn (i.e. the less the financial cost of buying a bike is an disincentive) the greater the percentage you save. Its just there to abuse for those folks looking to buy themeselves some more toys who have plenty of cash to do so anyway and are just looking to dodge some tax.

Do you actually know this, have any stat's or is it just your considered opinion? I don't know myself but if you're predominantly basing it on the bike-acquiring-cogitations off this forum I suggest it might be misleading / unrepresentative of the "real" situation. Hell, even if it's word of mouth and ad hoc experience I'd be sceptical. I know you can use stat's to prove anything but it's still better than hearsay.

Besides, does it really matter if it's someone "rich" that ends up buying a bike (and using it) by virtue of the scheme? Have you ever thought that it's these people who are likely to be using their own cars / bigger gas-guzzlers and therefore every bit of travelling they do by bike instead is "better" (more significant) than the "poor" who, by virtue of their finances, are more likely to use communual / public / smaller engined / more efficient / economic / environmentally friendly transport?

The same vague logic applies to the other categories (children, retired etc) because, I guess, they're not exactly sitting in the commute Monday to Friday (I appreciate the kids run is contrary to this assumption).

I understood Cyclescheme is available to all employees, whether they are a sole trader or work for a multinational so it's available to a pretty wide range of people, so long as they or their employer chooses to take it up. IT's not perfect but the scheme has to operate somehow.

It's a tax break for any employer/ee, the only reason shops etc get hit by 10% charges is because employers are lazy and can't be bothered to set it up themselves. They go to an intermediary who makes their business lives easier. And again, even if there is a 10% levy (I think Cycle2work charge 10% at both ends; shop and employer) if it gets people (whoever) out on bikes then that's great by me.

As for VAT exemption, in a more perfect world that'd be great. The cynic in me thinks it'd just get absorbed into the supply chain / shop etc and the end punter wouldn't see 17.5% (roll on 20%) benefit.

How does "occasionally" (your word) in anyway constitute majority use? You know what the scheme is for, I know what the scheme is for, the shops knows what the scheme is for – and long travel radcore mtbs which might once in a blue moon be used to bimble to work if the weather is nice, is not it!

Go on, fill your boots, every other f*cker has! Just please don't bleat on about state of roads/NHS/ other government agencies when you've just robbed them of 500 squid that will be desperately needed in the coming years.

Wow, massive loss of perspective.

So long as people buy bikes and use them that's cool. There's benefits in them doing so whether it's commuting or just riding around. It's not like they're using the vouchers to score drugs, transfat laden burgers or midgets with trays on their heads.

Oh, and I got a call saying my little purchase on the scheme should be ready to pick up next week. Schwweeet!

Flat bar, disc'd, alfined Roadrats due back in stock early July, apparently.

I have a vouvher burning a hole in my pocket.

Looking forward to trying a number of new things (700c wheels, alfine etc) compared to a semi-slicked MTB. Commute will be pretty similar to OP's, road and trail.

A mate mentioned a Singlular Cycles Gryphon, which looked like an interesting option (looks being a big divider with that bike). Couldn't do it within my budget unfortunately.

Use a TrailGator, never used a tagalong.

Slopping from side to side sounds like the connections / brackets on frame aren't done up tight enough or are out of line. I needed to straighten / nip everything up after the first couple of rides but that sorted it.

I have no problems with sprog slipping off saddle / height of front wheel others have mentioned. Fitted to a Tinbred / old EA30 post and to the lads CNOC16 (lad is a tall 5 year old).

To me, as the Gator works and I've had no problems with it (and have done some relatively rough trail riding) it seems the best value and is much more versatile.

Took the boy up the Planets Trail / Sustrans Route 65 at Easter. Rode from Pluto (?) to the Sun using the Gator then back under his own steam. Couldn't have done this with a proper tagalong.

Each to their own but I'd get a Gator.

LOL!

It's the company's choice whether we will opt to sell the bike to you at the end of the hire period. If we do and you choose to become the owner of the equipment, you will be offered the opportunity to pay the fair market value for the bike from your net salary. Ownership of the equipment will then transfer to you upon receipt of the agreed value.

How much is a fair market value?

This cannot be stated before or during the hire period as any guarantee that we give you over the option to own the bike may constitute a benefit in kind, which would not qualify for the tax savings. If we decide to offer you ownership it is up to the company to decide how much the fair market value will be and this will be subject to VAT.

However, as stated on the Cyclescheme website, the fair market value is the amount that a buyer would pay to a seller to purchase the bike and equipment. Whilst each bike is assessed separately, in their experience the market shows values to be around 5% of the original voucher plus VAT.

I asked HR the same question recently and got the reply, above.

I think the underlined bit was a pretty heavy hint 8-)

From a bit of research I thought the Alfine was equivalent to (roughly) a 12 to 38T cassette (with an 18T sprocket). So the potential gear range is broader than a typical 1*9 set up.

Someone with better grasp of gearing might know better.

Whilst drag is acknowledged from new it's supposed to reduce significantly once bedded in (c.200 miles).

Don't know about the tensioner.

NB: this is all based on research not personal experience, the damn thing is on back order ;-)

Thought pisspots took numerous (not massive) knocks whilst a typical trail lid was a "one-hit-wonder".

Hence pisspots are more durable, day to day, for jumping and clattering about.

Thank you Mr Smart Arse ;-)

You are correct though. They manage the Public Forest Estate which is the nations. They also manage parcels of land for other people / organisations / estates. However, in no real instances are they the land owner and the (IMO) vast majority of land they manage is PFE. To dwell on the odd exception in some hope of proving some probably spurious point doesn't really seem worthwhile.

I have no aspirations to socialism or any other "brother"hood but I do think that a public body / quango tasked with management of "our" land ought to deliver the objectives placed on it by Government and for the benefit of the population. I have lots of experience dealing with FE / FC and IMO this doesn't happen as much or as well as it could or ought.

However, I happily acknowledge that without FE we wouldn't have lots of trails and trail centres so I am not wholly critical of them at all. I think they've done a great job in places and at times. Also, I don't think this thread needs to become another debate about FE/C as that has been done (and probably continues) already.

T 8-)

FC is not the landowner they are the land MANAGER. We (the nation) own the land.

Sorry, bug bear ;-)

But why should a rider have to "poach" / tresspass a perfectly suitably (functionally) trail/path/road just because it has been arbitrarily given a RoW designation that doesn't allow them to use it? In such instances you don't even have to be particularly sensitive or sustainable in yoiur use, surely? Certainly in the situations I'm imagining such tracks wouldn't be susceptible to erosion from one or umpteen bikers.

That's one facet of the argument.

As for poaching all the sweet, sinuous, flowing, grin inducing stuff that might be designated Footpath or anything else that precludes riding. All I can say is that, if the majority of us are prepared to be sensible and behave appropriately, why can't we share with other users?

I'm not looking to blaze a random trail through the middle of crops and flocks. I don't particularly want to ride absolutely anywhere a wheel could possibly roll. However, I would love to have the legal right to share the use of all the appropriate trails/paths/roads throughout England with the other users that already have the right of access.

I still intend to poach cheeky stuff or whatever term anyone deems to give it in the meantime. I'll still argue that to make a big fuss about my use of "appropriate" trails/paths/roads is to waste their time and effort as well as mine. So much of this is all navel gazing but talking about it before and thinking about it more has helped me form what I think is a relatively well balanced and rational approach that doesn't just rest on the pillar of "it's illegal (whatever)" therefore you should never, ever break any law whatsoever.

How many folk on here would actually not ride track (legal or otherwise) if they thought they might make a mess of it? I'm not sure anyone is going to be THAT responsible are they?

Let's not kid ourselves here, we're after more fun first and if that helps the environment second then so be it?

A lot of riders who use Ilkley Moor accept exactly that situation. There are legal sections to ride and there are "grey areas". It either gets ridden in the dry (or drier) times or when it's frozen (or several foot deep in snow).

So yes, some riders do adopt a sensible, sensitive and pragmatic approach.

If I've been cutting ruts with my mighty leg power up some mulchy climb I've either backed off the mighty (as if) power (as it's better technique – a spinning wheel isn't giving any traction) or sacked it and pushed.