# What All Mountain Bikers Should Know



## rudis_dad (27 Feb 2013)

*Mods - Any chance of a sticky on this one please??*

In the thirty years or more that I have been riding bicycles seriously, both on and off road, it is gratifying to see that far from being a “fad” as was expected, mountain biking has grown into a fully-fledged and, in most cases, generally accepted and legitimate outdoor activity.

However, with the rise in popularity of purpose-built trail centres, a worrying diversity has come about amongst those who participate. The sanitised, cotton-wool wrapped world of the trail centre is leading to a tendency amongst us to ignore, either wilfully or otherwise, the rights and wrongs of where we can ride legitimately away from such trails.

Twenty or more years ago, trail centres were unheard of. Mountain bikers and “rough stuff” riders had to learn where they could ride without fear of persecution or causing conflict with other users. This situation still applies, yet it seems that an ever-increasing number of us are ignorant of the facts; alarmingly, it seems that the number of individuals who seem to think that they can ride where and when they like at the expense of other people is also growing.

So, what are the facts of where we can and cannot ride legitimately, away from dedicated trail centres or cycle routes?

*PLEASE NOTE – The following only applies in England and Wales. The laws governing Scotland and Northern Ireland are different.*

*Public Highways*
Or the road to use the vernacular. All public highways (except those designated as motorways) can be used by pedal cycles, subject to the prevailing traffic regulations.

*Pavements or Footways*
A pavement or footway here is defined as any way directly adjoining a public highway. It is illegal for any cyclist to ride on a pavement or footway, except where such is designated as “shared use” or a cycle path. Cycling on a pavement is a criminal offence and can result in arrest, a formal caution, a fine or even imprisonment. It is legal to dismount and to push a pedal cycle along a pavement.

A pavement or footway MUST NOT be confused with a public footpath; this is a completely different entity as we shall see.

*Public Rights of Way*
Public Rights of Way (PRoWs) are those pathways, tracks, trails or means of access which are protected in law and allow the general public (i.e. you and I) to cross and re-cross privately owned land without let or hindrance.

PRoWs can roughly be divided into three groups – public byways; public bridleways; and public footpaths.

The most popular source of information as to the route taken by a PRoW is the good old Ordnance Survey map. I suggest that you invest in the OS Landranger or Explorer map for your area, and learn where the PRoWs run and how to identify them.

However, OS maps are NOT a reliable source of information as to the status of a PRoW - for example, whether a public footpath is actually that, or whether it has been upgraded, moved or closed. The only way to correctly determine the status is to refer to the definitive maps held by the local authority for the area. Remember that a track or path on the ground is not evidence of a right of way – just because a path is there doesn’t mean that you can use it. Neither is a right of way on the map evidence that one exists. This is particularly pertinent where a landowner may tolerate members of the public using their land for recreational purposes without any right of way being extant. I find it irritating, although not a little amusing, when people get all huffy because “their trail” has been closed/blocked off/bulldozed when they had no right to be there in the first place!

*A Public Byway* is generally open to all traffic, regardless of its surface or its route. This means that it can be used by pedestrians, cyclists, horses, horse-drawn vehicles and motor traffic. However, many byways are subject to a Traffic Restriction Orders (TRO) which prohibits the use of motor vehicles. These are referred to as Restricted Byways. TROs may be permanent or temporary. A good example of this is Mastiles Lane, between Malham and Kilnsey in the Yorkshire Dales, which was famously one of the first byways subject to a TRO to allow the surface to recover after years of use by off-roaders and trailer-riders.

*A Public Bridleway* is open to pedestrians, equestrians, horse-drawn vehicles and cyclists. Motor traffic is not allowed on a public bridleway under any circumstances.

*Public Footpaths* are a bone of contention. There is no statement in English law which specifically prohibits the use of a bicycle on a public footpath. However, if you do so you are open to a charge of trespass. Herein lies the problem.

Trespass is a civil, not criminal, offence. You cannot be arrested for, nor charged with trespass, by the authorities (significantly, signs reading “Trespassers will be Prosecuted” are completely spurious, since one cannot be prosecuted for a civil offence – the correct wording should be “Trespassers may be subject to legal proceedings”).

In order to bring a case of trespass, the landowner has to show that criminal damage (a criminal offence, as its title would suggest) has been caused. Very few cases of trespass have been brought against pedal cyclists, and all have been rejected due to lack of evidence.

Should you ride on public footpaths? Probably not, although there are possible exceptions, such as genuine emergencies. I would suggest that ignorance is not a viable defence. Personally, I avoid public footpaths – using them only creates tensions.

*Etiquette and Other Notes*
There are certain other rules and points of etiquette that you should observe when using PRoWs.

No stopping! Strictly speaking, once you are on a PRoW you are not allowed to stop! That said, certain logical exceptions are made, such as opening and closing gates, mending a puncture, or stopping for refreshment.

You are legally entitled to attempt to remove any obstruction with resources at your immediate disposal. For example, if a branch has fallen off a tree and is blocking your way, if you can move it there and then you can do so. You cannot, however, return later in the day with a chainsaw and cut it up!

There is a pecking order on PRoWs. Everyone must give way to pedestrians, and cyclists must also give way to horses. Motor vehicles must give way to everyone else.

Where there is sufficient width, you should ride on the left, and overtake on the right. You are still subject to traffic regulations even if you are not on a public highway – you must give the proper signals and use lights after dark.

If you are approaching anyone from behind, it is simple common courtesy to warn them of your approach. This gives them time to move to one side and get children/dogs/horses/old people under control. You should warn equestrians far earlier than pedestrians, and be prepared to stop if necessary. A tonne or more of out-of-control horse is a frightening thing to behold, let alone try to bring under control.

NEVER assume that other trail users have heard your approach – I can guarantee that they will not have. Inattention, headphones and wind noise can all cancel out audible signs of your approach, no matter how loud you think that your freehub is.

Always pass with lots of smiles, a friendly “thank you”, “good morning/afternoon”, or even stop for a chat if you feel like it. Simple yet effective, even if you get no response.

You will always meet one smart-mouth who will tell you that you should be carrying a bell. This is nonsense. There is no legal requirement for a bicycle to be fitted with a bell, horn, or other audible warning device when in use. The only legal requirement is that a complete bicycle must be sold with one. I find that vocal chords, a big mouth and a set of well-developed lungs are as effective as anything. Plus they don’t rattle and ping annoyingly out on the trail.

*Access Land*
Some land is now classified as Access Land. This is usually (but by no means always) large open areas of upland which are uncultivated or not used for farming. A good example is land owned by some utility companies and some areas of National Trust land.

Access Land is the nearest that we come in England and Wales to having a “right to roam”. This means effectively that you can go freely anywhere on this land within certain provisions (i.e. dogs on leads, don’t disturb wildlife, etc.).

Sadly at present, Access Land is only available to pedestrians – no-one else has any right to use access land.

All access land is clearly marked on newer OS maps, but again you should check with the landowner/local authority if you are in any doubt.

*In Summary*
The above guidelines have stood me in good stead during 25 years or more of mountain biking. In that time I can count the number of times that I have come into conflict with landowners or other trail users on the fingers of one hand.

I would humbly suggest that we all adopt a similar approach.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (27 Feb 2013)

rudis_dad said:


> I would humbly suggest that we all adopt a similar approach.


I would humbly suggest that your root cause analysis is deficient and your conclusion defective as a result. I'd, furthermore, and less humbly, suggest that your humble suggestion, like most, will most like be ignored. This for two reasons. The ignorant ignore things and are named so for a reason, and the vast majority of folk already comply the vast majority of the time.

Me? I'll carry on riding my bikes according to my own lights thanks. Mostly legally, most of the time. But my safety and, on rare occasion convenience, trumps all unless real harm will arise.

For instance locally we have a number of PRoWs bi-sected by major roads (A264 and A24 two immediate examples) that did not exist at the time the PRoW was established. Due to sleight of hand and chicanery in many instances the ancient bridleway that deposits you besides, say, the south bound carriageway of the shiny relative new NSL A24 DC continues on the other side of the north-bound carriageway as a public footpath which in turn links with a nice little country lane. Incoherent and illogical. Riding the footpath may be _de jure_ illegal but is _de facto_ fine. You will rarely, if ever, meet a walker on it and your tyre tracks fail the test of criminal damage and the land owner is the highways authority or some other completely uninterested party.


----------



## rudis_dad (27 Feb 2013)

Wow. Somebody got out of bed the wrong side this morning. And swallowed a dictionary for breakfast.

At no point did I claim that my summary was infallible. What I will claim is that these are the rules; there will always be exceptions to the rule, as your case proves. But that said if the bridleway shares the same route as the footway, then you are on a PRoW which can legitimately be used by cycles. Sadly, it's holier-than-thou attitudes that work against our common cause. One set of rules for the rich and one for the poor, and all that malarkey.

Incoherent and illogical though? I'd dispute that. Maybe they have different meanings in West Sussex from their meanings "oop North" where we all wear clogs and flat caps, breed whippets and live on a diet of Grimshaws Tawny Mild, tripe and babies.


----------



## Deleted member 23692 (27 Feb 2013)

Nicely put, although your section on byways needs expanding a bit. Restricted Byways are a classification in their own right, and are relatively new status predominantly resulting from reclassification of 'Roads Used as Public Paths' (RUPPS) - those with demonstrable mechanically propelled vehicular rights got upgraded to BOATS. Whilst others got downgraded to BW, and those in the middle grey areas got turned to RB's. BOATS with TRO's in place are still technically BOATS.. but with restrictions. RBs can be created in their own right 

There is only one legally correct definitive map per highway area - and that is held/maintained by the highway authority. Anything held by district/parish councils etc are copies and have no legal status. Some districts council may have claimed rights and maintain the PRoW's in their area but normally the legal definitive map work remains with the Highway Authority. National Parks fall between the two camps normally.

Certain access land may have 'Higher Rights' (CRoW 2000 S16) which are pre existing access rights over and above those provided by the 2000 act. However very few do involve cycling.

As for riding where there is no right to do so. Two schools of thought exist. One being is that if you can do so without stealth or malice and the landowner makes no effort to stop you, then it can be seen as presumed dedication and you're effectively building up a case for it to be claimed as a PRoW in the future.. there's a 2026 deadline for this though. The other being that you are going to mightily piss off the landowner, and that just makes if harder (for people like me) to get improvement work to other PRoWs on their land agreed, because you're selfishly giving public access a bad name.


----------



## lukesdad (27 Feb 2013)

The definitve map for rights of way is not held by the highway authority. It is held by the County Council and can be viewed by appointment with the relevent officer at your county council.


----------



## Deleted member 23692 (27 Feb 2013)

County Councils (and unitary authorities) are highway authorities


----------



## lukesdad (27 Feb 2013)

Ffoeg said:


> County Councils (and unitary authorities) are highway authorities


Well im glad you made that clear


----------



## lukesdad (27 Feb 2013)

Highway Authorities cover MOD land do they ?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (28 Feb 2013)

rudis_dad said:


> Wow. Somebody got out of bed the wrong side this morning. And swallowed a dictionary for breakfast.
> 
> At no point did I claim that my summary was infallible. What I will claim is that these are the rules; there will always be exceptions to the rule, as your case proves. But that said if the bridleway shares the same route as the footway, then you are on a PRoW which can legitimately be used by cycles. Sadly, it's holier-than-thou attitudes that work against our common cause. One set of rules for the rich and one for the poor, and all that malarkey.
> 
> Incoherent and illogical though? I'd dispute that. Maybe they have different meanings in West Sussex from their meanings "oop North" where we all wear clogs and flat caps, breed whippets and live on a diet of Grimshaws Tawny Mild, tripe and babies.


Someone has clearly nipped your sac off road and you post a thread entitled
*What All Mountain Bikers Should Know*

that starts off drawing all sorts of incorrect conclusions which seem based on your own prejudices around trail centres and the people that ride in them. You use this pompous pre-amble as justification to then lecture on the subject of rights of way which has been done to death 1000's of times in 1000's of places. And then gripe about my response.

The network of PRoW's in these parts is incoherent and illogical as my example of the severed route demonstrates. Perhaps oop north, and frankly Lancashire is by my definition and heritage merely the North Midlands, your network is all neat and Bristol fashion. But round here and in the parts of God's own country that I've ridden in, it ain't and that's because the network and the laws around it are a product of a class driven legal and political system which seeks to control access to land. PRoW's are the living embodiment of 'them and us', and should be ignored and replaced by system of "roam where you will but leave no trace and do no harm" imo.

People ride their bikes off road where, and how, they like and if they do that illegally, under criminal or civil law, that is between them and the relevant authorities and frankly none of your or my business. Citing some non-existant common cause or appealing to the social mores of yesteryear or the sweat of our forefathers is a waste of keystrokes.

But other than that we are in complete agreement.


----------



## 02GF74 (28 Feb 2013)




----------



## Crackle (28 Feb 2013)

I dunno. I fall somewhere between Greg and Rudi, not literally I'll have you know. Definitely more mtn bikers on the local NT access land but most are sensible and are either night birds or early birds. I know this because I walk the dog up there, not under close control as the sign next to the no bikes says. I may or may not have ridden my bike there


----------



## GrumpyGregry (28 Feb 2013)

Crackle said:


> I dunno. I fall somewhere between Greg and Rudi, not literally I'll have you know. Definitely more mtn bikers on the local NT access land but most are sensible and are either night birds or early birds. I know this because I walk the dog up there, not under close control as the sign next to the no bikes says. I may or may not have ridden my bike there


"Bladdy dog walkers. No respect. Why can't they keep em on a lead. When I were a boy this was all fields, et cetera, et cetera"


----------



## Crackle (28 Feb 2013)

GregCollins said:


> "Bladdy dog walkers. No respect. Why can't they keep em on a lead. When I were a boy this was all fields, et cetera, et cetera"


s'allright, my conscience has adapted to being a double law breaker.

In my defence, I did have to pull the ivy off the sign to see what it said.


----------



## bianchi1 (28 Feb 2013)

GregCollins said:


> Someone has clearly nipped your sac off road and you post a thread entitled
> *What All Mountain Bikers Should Know*
> 
> that starts off drawing all sorts of incorrect conclusions which seem based on your own prejudices around trail centres and the people that ride in them. You use this pompous pre-amble as justification to then lecture on the subject of rights of way which has been done to death 1000's of times in 1000's of places. And then gripe about my response.
> ...


 
Isnt the point that while everyone is able to "ride their bikes off road where, and how, they like", it is not a bad idea to know (roughly) the law so that you can make an informed decision. 

Around the Malvens (the mid midlands) there are a cunning mixture of paths, some of which we can use (legally) and some that you have break the law to use. You takes your choice, but its good to know the difference which is what the OP was trying to do.

Another good example is the poor Kenyan athletes over for the commonwealth games who had no idea that some UK roads are off limits to bikes...namely the M61 which they used for a couple of days!

The title of the thread is not "*What All Mountain Bikers Should do" *but "*What All Mountain Bikers Should Know" * which seems relatively non-contentious.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (28 Feb 2013)

bianchi1 said:


> The title of the thread is not "*What All Mountain Bikers Should do" *but "*What All Mountain Bikers Should Know" * which seems relatively noncontinuous.


If the entirety of the OP was merely the title your analysis would be fine, but instead we have a sermon preaching. Urging a change in behaviour. People must comply with the law and thus avoid conflict and disrespecting the memories of those who went before us. And in a cycling forum not renowned as a hive of mtb related activity a sermon preached to the converted.

I've no problem with the factual content, just the preachy tone and the BS about trail centre users.


----------



## bianchi1 (28 Feb 2013)

GregCollins said:


> If the entirety of the OP was merely the title your analysis would be fine, but instead we have a sermon preaching. Urging a change in behaviour. People must comply with the law and thus avoid conflict and disrespecting the memories of those who went before us. And in a cycling forum not renowned as a hive of mtb related activity a sermon preached to the converted.
> 
> I've no problem with the factual content, just the preachy tone and the BS about trail centre users.




Fair point.

Recently a member of the local Malvern MTB club raised the idea of a fixed code of conduct to be worked out for riding on the hills, but it was roundly dismissed as it was felt that as soon as rules are set in stone, someone will break them and in the end all biking will be banned.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (1 Mar 2013)

Surely the only code we need is something like


Treat others and their wishes and their property respectfully, as the valuable fragile things they are, and as you would like to be treated yourself
Tread lighlty, leave no trace, and do no harm
Ride where you like, when in doubt see 1


----------



## bianchi1 (1 Mar 2013)

GregCollins said:


> Surely the only code we need is something like
> 
> 
> Treat others and their wishes and their property respectfully, as the valuable fragile things they are, and as you would like to be treated yourself
> ...



Sadly, number 2 is often argued as a reason why cyclists should not use the hills. There is an argument (not clearly proven) that mountain bikers, especially on turns, cause damage to the paths. There may also be an argument that in order to do no harm, cyclists should be restricted during lambing season as they unwittingly cause distress to the sheep. 

Leave no trace is a hugely important movement in the outdoor industry, especially in the US. It can however lead to high levels of restrictions, both in numbers and type of usage. I personally like the fact that on some trails/climbs you have to pick up a personal toilet tube in order that you really leave no trace!


----------



## Crackle (1 Mar 2013)

bianchi1 said:


> Sadly, number 2 is often argued as a reason why cyclists should not use the hills. There is an argument (not clearly proven) that mountain bikers, especially on turns, cause damage to the paths.


 This was an argument in the 90's, is it really still one, I've not seen it recently as I thought it was largely discredited. Bike tracks quickly get covered, by far the greater damage and wear is done by walkers.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (1 Mar 2013)

bianchi1 said:


> Sadly, number 2 is often argued as a reason why cyclists should not use the hills. There is an argument (not clearly proven) that mountain bikers, especially on turns, cause damage to the paths. There may also be an argument that in order to do no harm, cyclists should be restricted during lambing season as they unwittingly cause distress to the sheep.
> 
> Leave no trace is a hugely important movement in the outdoor industry, especially in the US. It can however lead to high levels of restrictions, both in numbers and type of usage. I personally like the fact that on some trails/climbs you have to pick up a personal toilet tube in order that you really leave no trace!


undoubtedly riding mtb's leaves a trace, and causes erosion, as does riding horses, as do walkers. Is the trace significant? It can well be if a trail is overused but any one individual riding responsibly is not responsible for the collective damage surely? 'Rule' 1 overrides all the others. Respect the trail or one day it won't be there any more.

I'm fine with no riding in certain areas during lambing btw provided someone can show me the evidence/data of sheep stress rather than merely expressing landowner 'geroffmoyland' stress which exists, in some, all year round ime.


----------



## bianchi1 (1 Mar 2013)

Crackle said:


> This was an argument in the 90's, is it really still one, I've not seen it recently as I thought it was largely discredited. Bike tracks quickly get covered, by far the greater damage and wear is done by walkers.



It is around here, although you could argue that the malvens are stuck in the 1890's let alone the 1990's. The argument is coming back into favour with a wider audience also however. As numbers increase so the damage becomes more noticeable. Hard breaking points, tight corners and steep inclines that cause wheel spin are all highlighted as problem areas. Sadly, often bike tracks are not covered. An observable phenomenon is the creation of unofficial paths where repeated use (by walkers, cyclists of horse riders) will wear down the grass leaving a mundy path..this then becomes too muddy, exposed roots or rocky and people will ride/walk either side of the 'path' causing even more damage. 

I must be clear that I find a lot of these arguments over simplistic, and any increased legislation would not be the answer in my opinion. I much prefer the model of providing amazing facilities specifically for trail riding or downhill (think uplift, tracks, jumps, cafe's, bars etc) that act as a 'honey pot'.


----------



## bianchi1 (1 Mar 2013)

GregCollins said:


> undoubtedly riding mtb's leaves a trace, and causes erosion, as does riding horses, as do walkers. Is the trace significant? It can well be if a trail is overused but any one individual riding responsibly is not responsible for the collective damage surely? 'Rule' 1 overrides all the others. Respect the trail or one day it won't be there any more.
> 
> I'm fine with no riding in certain areas during lambing btw provided someone can show me the evidence/data of sheep stress rather than merely expressing landowner 'geroffmoyland' stress which exists, in some, all year round ime.




We have a huge amount of common land around me so it's not about "geroffmoyland". Sheep are a real danger in some of our clubs road time trials!


----------



## Motozulu (1 Mar 2013)

> I'm fine with no riding in certain areas during lambing btw provided someone can show me the evidence/data of sheep stress


 
I can clear this up. Having come from a background of animal husbandry let me tell you that the damage to a sheeps psyche can be devastating and long term. I can illustrate this.

A healthy, happy, sheep.






A sheep suffering from severe stress.





As you can see the effects are quite horrific. However there is a way that sheep can be integrated with bikers and made to feel non-threatened by our off-road activities.





HTH.


----------



## chqshaitan (1 Mar 2013)

Motozulu said:


> I can clear this up. Having come from a background of animal husbandry let me tell you that the damage to a sheeps psyche can be devastating and long term. I can illustrate this.
> 
> A healthy, happy, sheep.
> 
> ...


 
haha, class, that made me laugh lol


----------



## Licramite (1 Mar 2013)

In the last year allot of of road cycle tracks and walking routes have been closed since the (previuos) goverment brought in the act that if a trackway was used for 20years it became a public right of way and the land owner who had allowed it , out of courtsy, couldn't close it and had to maintain it. - so they closed them.
I've lost two routes route my way.
Of course the conflict between walkers and bicycles continues, (and deer and sheep). - to great extent I blame the cyclists , you don't have right of way so you should slow down near other track users. - big row about a new route near plymouth, the sustrans route we want to use runs downhill and the locals have objected about the possible increase in cyclists.

did you see the clip on the internet, american off roader on some race got taken out by a young deer, - it's also happened to me. - stupid thing waited till I was practically passing it when it decided, if I go left I run across open fields, but if I go right I cross the road take out his front wheel, jump a hedge and run up hill away.
- so I'm lying on the road watching this deer running up a hill.


----------



## bianchi1 (1 Mar 2013)

It looks like sheep hate walkers far more more that cyclists.

"Another study evaluated the behavioral responses of desert bighorn sheep to disturbance by hikers, mountain bikers, and vehicles in low- and high-use areas of Canyonlands National Park (Papouchis and others., 2001). Following observations of 1,029 bighorn sheep/human interactions, the authors reported that *sheep fled 61 percent of the time from hikers, 17 percent of the time from vehicles, and 6 percent of the time from mountain bikers*. The stronger reaction to hikers, particularly in the high-use area, was attributed to more off-trail hiking and direct approaches to the sheep. The researchers recommended that park officials restrict recreational uses to trails, particularly during the lambing and rut seasons, in order to minimize disturbance."


----------



## GrumpyGregry (1 Mar 2013)

On the south downs and hereabouts herds of deer run away from walkers but often just stand and watch cyclists


----------



## Deleted member 23692 (1 Mar 2013)

Licramite said:


> In the last year allot of of road cycle tracks and walking routes have been closed since the (previuos) goverment brought in the act that if a trackway was used for 20years it became a public right of way and the land owner who had allowed it , out of courtsy, couldn't close it and had to maintain it. - so they closed them.


I'm really not sure which Act you're referring to here, but the only major change to PRoW's legislation (CRoW 2000) that the last gov brought in was setting a deadline for getting unrecorded historical rights of way (existing before 1949) added to the definitive map at 2026.

The Wilfdlife and Countryside Act 1980 still enables post 1949 usage to be claimed by the public if that usage if brought into question. If the public can demonstrate 20years uninterrupted usage there is a good chance the route can be added to the definitive map by modification order. 

Also the CRoW 2000 introduced the Rights of Way Improvement Plan (RoWIP) where the public can summit ideas to highway/access authorities whereby the network can be brought up to date for modern (predominantly recreational) usage instead of the historical utility network we were gifted in the 1950s. Might be worth checking out locally 

I do much of the above for a living and have enough work to keep my busy for a good few years yet. Unfortunately PRoW legislation is complicated and contradictory which means nothing gets done quickly, and when budget cuts come round countryside access is always an easy target.

One final point on bikes causing erosion - yes they do but in a different way to feet & hoof. A wheel rolling over a surface disturbs very little, however the rut in can create on soft sloping ground creates a runnel which can channels and increase the speed of water runoff causing increased washout. Foot and hoof tend to create pockets in soft ground which retains and pools the water softening the ground - continued use just creates mud. That's a very simplistic explanation as there are plenty of other site specific factors causing wear. Additionally, locking the back wheel whilst breaking can rip a line in an otherwise solid weather resistant surface - this lets water in and can start eroding on an otherwise good surface.

Anyhoo, tis the weekend and I left all this on a desk 'til Monday


----------



## tadpole (1 Mar 2013)

Crackle said:


> This was an argument in the 90's, is it really still one, I've not seen it recently as I thought it was largely discredited. Bike tracks quickly get covered, by far the greater damage and wear is done by walkers.


Walkers rarely chop down trees or dig up and transport rocks to make jumps and tracks, nor do they set fire to mature trees or attempt to fell them as they "are in the way of a new downhill"


----------



## 02GF74 (1 Mar 2013)

Crackle said:


> This was an argument in the 90's, is it really still one, I've not seen it recently as I thought it was largely discredited. Bike tracks quickly get covered, by far the greater damage and wear is done by walkers.


 

so what? what is the point of there being countryside if you cannot use it? conveniently those that argue against bikes or walkers or horses or whatever damagaing the countryside kinda fail to mention the amount of damage i.e. diappearance of it by building, houses, roads and takeaways.

i am not syain we should go out willy nuilly and rie whereve we want but if there is an existing path, then it makes harldy any difference if it gets a little bit worn - it takes surprisingly short time for any unused path to get overgorwn and reclaimed by natrure.


----------



## Crackle (1 Mar 2013)

tadpole said:


> Walkers rarely chop down trees or dig up and transport rocks to make jumps and tracks, nor do they set fire to mature trees or attempt to fell them as they "are in the way of a new downhill"





02GF74 said:


> so what? what is the point of there being countryside if you cannot use it? conveniently those that argue against bikes or walkers or horses or whatever damagaing the countryside kinda fail to mention the amount of damage i.e. diappearance of it by building, houses, roads and takeaways.
> 
> i am not syain we should go out willy nuilly and rie whereve we want but if there is an existing path, then it makes harldy any difference if it gets a little bit worn - it takes surprisingly short time for any unused path to get overgorwn and reclaimed by natrure.


 
Calm down chaps, just sayin' like


----------



## Motozulu (1 Mar 2013)

It's all a bit arguey is'nt it?

Well I'm afraid everyone, you're quite wrong, and I'm right

I think that's cleared that argument up.


----------



## 02GF74 (2 Mar 2013)

GregCollins said:


> On the south downs and hereabouts herds of deer run away from walkers but often just stand and watch cyclists


 
ducks and geese do that as well, they are probbly checking out if you have rocket rons fitted .... or more likley get confused by a human moving so quickly or hypnotised by the rotating wheels "look into my wheels, look into my wheels ..... ".

a normal duck:





a hypnotised duck


----------



## GrumpyGregry (2 Mar 2013)

tadpole said:


> Walkers rarely chop down trees or dig up and transport rocks to make jumps and tracks, nor do they set fire to mature trees or attempt to fell them as they "are in the way of a new downhill"


Landowners do that sort of stuff all the time. Felling trees to block RoW, leaving wind blown fallen trees in place for months when they clear others, illegally locking gates hut, putting large concrete blocks across paths, uprooting fingerposts, driving 4WD over their land rendering the path useless to anyone not in a 4WD.

And that's just the examples I can think of from a 10 mile radius of my house from the last couple of years


----------



## tadpole (4 Mar 2013)

GregCollins said:


> Landowners do that sort of stuff all the time. Felling trees to block RoW, leaving wind blown fallen trees in place for months when they clear others, illegally locking gates hut, putting large concrete blocks across paths, uprooting fingerposts, driving 4WD over their land rendering the path useless to anyone not in a 4WD.
> 
> And that's just the examples I can think of from a 10 mile radius of my house from the last couple of years


Not relevant, Walkers do no damage the land in the same way mountain bikers and cycle-cross riders do.


----------



## Licramite (4 Mar 2013)

Farmers/landowners have a point, some of the rights of way cut straignt across feilds so they haveto plough either side of it, thats non-sense , I'm all for rights of way but go round the outside.
the classic is to put a water trough for cattle right by the style - yea you can come over ye sytle and walk through the field , but you have to wade through 2ft of cow shoot first.

On the damage aspect the ones that do the most surface damage on bridlepaths ect are scambler motorbikes - apart from tractors -
of course it comes down to the frequency of use, even walkers, if you get enough regulary will churn up a path. - I'm partly involved in country path repairs - some areas are very prone to errosion.

we are still very lucky with our access to the countryside , its not universal and in many countrys you just have any rights of way,.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (4 Mar 2013)

tadpole said:


> Not relevant, Walkers do no damage the land in the same way mountain bikers and cycle-cross riders do.


Eh? Have you not seen the damage walkers have done to honeypot locations in the Peaks and Lakes, or for that matter the footpath only sections of the SDW?


----------



## User16625 (13 Mar 2013)

Screw it I go where I like unless signs clearly state the land is private or dangerous etc. I do give way if I need to but as for definitions of the type of land im riding on, I literally care more about the weather........on neptune.


----------



## vernon (13 Mar 2013)

tadpole said:


> Not relevant, Walkers do no damage the land in the same way mountain bikers and cycle-cross riders do.


 
Compare the Pennine Way now with what it was like thirty years ago then come back and say with 100% conviction that walkers do not damage the land in the same way as bike riders. Even thirty years ago the PW was worn to several feet below the surrounding ground. I''ve yet to see the same degree of erosion/damage caused by off road cycling.


----------



## Deleted member 23692 (13 Mar 2013)

Using erosion of upland moors by walkers isn't really a far example, as these landscapes are so fragile they are very easily damaged by even medium levels of use (feet, hoof or wheel). Peat moorland when in good condition isn't cycle friendly, and thus rarely gets used. Once the binding surface vegetation gets weakened it'll quickly turn to deep mush before disappearing altogether - this is what happened with the Pennine Way and many other popular routes that cross moorland. Obviously walkers were responsible for much of the damage simply because it's a long distance footpath, and so the vast majority if users do so on foot.

Cyclist tend to prefer harder surfaces, and by their vary nature they are more sustainable and far longer lasting so any damage occurs quite slowly in comparison to a 'soft ground' footpath with similar usage. But all forms of use cause wear and tear (call it erosion if you will) and, as I said earlier, different user groups cause erosion in different ways.

I've worked in countryside access management for close on 20 years, and I'm still amazed and amused by the way each faction points the finger of blame at someone else


----------



## Licramite (14 Mar 2013)

Tanks are worse - try cycling over salisbury plain, the bloody tanks make right mess out of tracks.


----------



## david k (13 Apr 2013)

"A pavement or footway MUST NOT be confused with a public footpath"

How do we define the difference?


----------



## Licramite (16 Apr 2013)

Mud - public footpaths are ussually muddy , pavements aren't - but both are covered in dog sh-t.


----------

