I think you need to read the whole threadOriginally Posted by Graham Breeze
I think you need to read the whole thread
Too many opinions for me so I have asked my horse, Atacama, to epitomise.
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.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.
Last edited by LissaJous; 21-06-2013 at 09:39 AM.
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.
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:
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote