that's why ROW laws need a complete overhaul and simplification... it should be just motorised and non-motorised.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigfella
Printable View
that's why ROW laws need a complete overhaul and simplification... it should be just motorised and non-motorised.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigfella
Erm, no?
A bike is allowed on a bridleway, a motorised vehicle like a quad, a scrambler bike or a 4x4 isn't, unless it is open access...
I am wondering if one of the posters above who is so adamant that it is the MTB-ers that cause all the damage has actually seen this happen? Are you sure it wasn't motorised scrambler bikes that caused it? I am asking, because I ride my MTB on the open hills of the Black Mountains and Brecon Beacons. I stick to designated MTB routes and bridleways, occasionally linking them with footpaths, where I usually carry (cross bike) or push (MTB). I have a special agreement with most landowners, and this includes the FC and the National Park, that I can ride over their land ON FOOTPATHS... I do not cause any damage. I don't ride when it is so wet that I would but also: when it is so wet that a MTB would cause erosion, the terrain is generally unrideable anyway. However, you could with an engine, i.e. on a scrambler, and would cause the damage described. We have this problem here and I have seen it being done with my own eyes while out running... In fact, I have been appointed by the local ranger to keep an eye out and report perpetrators...
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigfella
Come on.. you can't play the I cause no damage card.. as a runner I erode.. 'leave only footprints..'Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanneke
A skilled rider may cause less damage.. I'll give you that.. very surprised at FC and the NP for granting access on paths..
This is just madness, now everyone will claim they have permission from whoever to ride on the footpath which makes the whole situation impossible to monitor.
Works fine in Scotland
Actually, not only does it work fine in Scotland. But having no legal distinction defining some as either a foot path or bridleway works even in the heavily populated central belt area.
Actually it didn't did it.. for a start hill tracks... also wasn't there an issue with top gear using a car on a track?Quote:
Originally Posted by shaunaneto
But Scotland has an issue with unregulated hill track developments.. make great easy running though.. :-)
The damage in Redisher Woods and the front of Holcombe Hill is being done by downhill mtb's, usually young lads who push their bikes up and then ride down at breakneck speed then repeat the same section over and over. All these downhill sections are set up as Strava segments hence why the same sections keep getting repeated. A distinction needs to be made between these types of mountain bikers and cross country riders like myself who generally tend to be older and more responsible and in my opinion cause minimal damage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Graeme78
Hill tracks are developed by private landowners. They can kinda do what they like, it's their land.(rightly or wrongly)Quote:
Originally Posted by IainR
Tis a bit different than having no distinction separating users based on chosen mode of non motorised transport.
But yes, makes for faster progress than knee deep in heather. I seem to recall with the Scottish system there's something about the surface needing to be suitable for purpose. Unless your shooting something, in which case go where you like.
Quite agree, however it's these lads that are giving the more responsible riders the bad name. I've discussed this in the past with a couple of other guys and heard the same sort of thing, however, given the relatively high frequency I've seen of bikers using the path down from Holcombe Tower by cyclists of all age groups, I would say this is a real issue in the area, and it's not just going through Redisher, cyclists are using the footpath from the Shoulder of Mutton into Ramsbottom,a cross Bolton Road West and into Nuttall Park, these are well used paths, this puts the general public at risk. To quote Tony Blair Education, education, education. If more cyclists were aware of the damage and dangers they cause and why it's bad there would be less conflict. When I was a climber, it was up to more experienced climbers to educate newer climbers whether you knew them or not, good and bad practices, shouldn't cyclists be doing the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maks
It's probably worth considering that there's more environmental impact on the countryside by ROW users than just trail erosion.
Also, this is what IMBA have to say. http://imba.org.uk/research-reports/...untain-biking/
It is a user group though, so make of it what you will.
********* I can't believe this is allowed, let alone studied. The poor Eagles.Quote:
Spahr found that walkers caused the highest frequency of eagle flushing
:rolleyes:
Why is this though? Is it because they are in areas more likely to be inhabited by eagles, or that they're just dumber.Quote:
Originally Posted by shaunaneto
As you are probably aware, it is a criminal offence to disturb a golden eagle, even if done inadvertently. (Don't ask me how that works, but I think it's something along the lines of, if you see a Golden Eagle don't walk towards it. Rather deliberately setting out to cause it harm.)
I can see what they are trying to do, provide a balanced argument, and I don't have a problem with that, and I would say it's difficult to be impartial when you can see hard evidence in your local area of what's happening. I don't dislike mtbers, they're a lot more friendly than most walkers you meet that's for sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by shaunaneto
I have to back up the MTB points around Darwen Tower. In recent years the tracks have been eroded massively. But the mentallity of some of these guys astounds me and the "downhillers" aren't just youngsters.
I was running with a small group a couple of weeks ago on a Wednesday evening at around 7:15. It was a nice night and we were spread out by a couple of minutes at the time. I was 3rd in line and came up a climb called Donkey Brew, which is a steep gravel track that turns to cobbles towards the top. It features in the Tockholes fell Race. At the top of the climb were 3 MTBers who I would guess were 40 - 50 years old. Sat waiting for me to descend at full tilt.
You could argue at least they were waiting and I did confirm that there were 5 others behind me, but after my 5 cleared, their descent would have been reckless to say teh least.
We also have the Billinge Woods area at the back of Witton where they have added some purpose built MTB routes around the summit of the woods. Runners, walkers have been around there for years. Since the MTBer routes were set up, it has been promoted of course and many come to try out the routes in the woods, but they get tempted by more attractive non-routes and you can see videos they have taken racing downhill on sections they aren't supposed to be on.
In the last 2 years, the tracks in the woods have become more churned up, severely rutted, and this means when we get downpours now, it has a greater affect on the erosion of the tracks.
With a few exceptions my only issue with MTB's is behaviour to other users.
Erosion, sometimes I wonder how much of this is due to restricting access. Funnel 100 riders into one path instead of 5-10 paths.
As an owner of mudclaws I'm hardly innocent. Those things chew the hills up like little else.
This is exactly it and why a change to a motorised/non-motorised distinction is the solution. It would also mean that MTB'ers and walkers would encounter each other more, expect to encounter each other and develop more respect and understanding.Quote:
Originally Posted by shaunaneto
Gets my vote. Motorised / non motorised is so simple and unambiguous. Everybody else just needs to learn to get along. Mountain bikers moan about walkers. Walkers moan about mountain bikers sneaking up behind them and making them jump (I'm sure I'm not the only one that has also done this when out running :wink:). But like many other areas of life most people are reasonable and considerate, the real idiots are unlikely to take much notice of the existing laws in any case.Quote:
Originally Posted by nikalas
But so is using your own two feet vs any kind of mechanical aid, your just picking the dividing line to support your argument. And yes I do own a mountain bike and ride it where permitted to do so.Quote:
Originally Posted by richsund
okay, so where do horses fit in and would you be happy with 4x4's, quad bikes and trail bikes on bridleways?Quote:
Originally Posted by bigfella
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikalas
Horses? On a bridle way? Whatever next!
I think you need to read the whole threadQuote:
Originally Posted by Graham Breeze
Too many opinions for me so I have asked my horse, Atacama, to epitomise.Quote:
Originally Posted by nikalas
We could probably argue through many more pages about who causes most damage (seems obvious that if it's one bike versus one walker/runner the bike is more damaging - extra weight and added propulsion dictate that but taken en masse and given there are usually far more walkers/runners than cyclists, the jury is out I suspect) and may vary from location to location.
However, to return to the specific point about UU and Winter Hill, on the paths where they are banning races it is very obvious that bikes are causing the (vast majority of the) damage - the ruts are simply too narrow to get your foot in much of the time and aren't caused or even worsened by feet. So UU can ban all races on that section of Winter Hill but erosion will continue unabated and the paths will get worse as long as bikes are still allowed along them. UU simply haven't done their homework and are shooting at the easiest target. Even if their stated intention of conserving the area and complying with NE's guidelines is genuine, their solution is completely missing the mark.
The environmental impact of a user goes beyond just erosion. It's also important to consider the impact on wildlife.Quote:
We could probably argue through many more pages about who causes most damage (seems obvious that if it's one bike versus one walker/runner the bike is more damaging - extra weight and added propulsion dictate that but taken en masse and given there are usually far more walkers/runners than cyclists, the jury is out I suspect) and may vary from location to location.
One supremely fatalistic steed by all accounts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham Breeze
7 pages of opinions based on an unattributed quote. Can anyone find the source document?
Who precisely published it and on what date? Has the quote been taken out of context? What is the link?
What a party pooper.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGrump
Just for good measure I'm going to throw another ill judged opinion backed up by nowt but my own poorly formed thought processes.
Dispose of the footpath/bridleway set up, and simply have paths that all non motorised users have access to. Create or bolster options for ROW officers to authorise path restrictions based on environmental or safety grounds.
All to often when I see these issues raised people focus on problem paths, and ignore the fact that the overwhelming majority of footpaths are absolutely fine for all users to use. Realistically many footpaths in the UK are underused once away from population centres. Many in danger of disappearing for lack of use. It wouldn't surprise me if the most common type of path in the UK has a hedge on one side and a field on the other. And hasn't seen use in weeks.
While I'm at it, open up access to all these farm tracks in rural England and Wales. So long as they lead from one place to another and do not terminate at a private residence.
Attachment 7078Attachment 7079Attachment 7080Attachment 7081Attachment 7082
While running on Winter Hill last night we came across these idiots!
They must have only been there for a couple of minutes before one of the runners in our group told them what they thought and they shot off, you can see the damage that was done in such a short time.
I've emailed the images to UU to see what there thoughts are on the matter. Just a shame we didn't get the number plates.
If they're owt like the ones I've seen, they'll have taken the plates off, or covered them :sneaky:Quote:
Originally Posted by hopey