[mrconners]

Went for a lovely walk with my Wife and the dog over Derwent edge today. Beautiful.


Anyway we were coming off Back Tor and down to the reservoir and stopped for a brew. Two fellas on bikes appeared and my wife remarked that it would be a lovely place to ride, i checked the map, no bridleways anywhere near us. I thought I better have a chat and very, very politely asked them if they were ok. They said all was fine and when I informed them that this was a footpath and it wasn't really playing the game to ride it they said there was enough room for everyone in the park etc tec etc etc. You can imagine how it went.
I was happy to tell them I'm a very keen cyclist and the only thing this sort of activity results in is bikers becoming more and more  marginalised and trails getting banned.
Anyway the point is, I seem to be seeing more and more bike tyre marks on footpaths all over the park and whilst I bet these paths are great to ride, its not right that it should be thought of as ok. The place is trashed enough as it is and its just giving us a bad name.
Anyone else have similar experiences?
Or am I just a moaning bastard 

[mrjonathanr]

+1

[Ti_pin_man]

yep being a moaning bar steward. Live and let live.  I recall seeing some studies indicating trail wear was on the whole, the same as a set of walking boots and substantially less than horses or motorbikes.  Cycles aren't noisy, there's no fumes and no more pollution.  I don't see the problem with cycles.  I'd also say the classification done donkeys years ago was deeply flawed, counties all had different definitions on bridle ways and pathways.  There are many county borders where footpaths magically become bridle ways right at the border.  Smile wave and be nice.

[mrconners]

Free for all then?


Not sure thats a good idea.


I am nice, always. But I don't believe for one moment that walking causes the same level of erosion as a bike.


Anyway, thats my view, we should stick to our designated trails, respect them and enjoy them.

[Ti_pin_man]

Not at all, pragmatism is my word.

Yes, of course, shoes cause no erosion, that's why they have resurfaced so very many paths with granite blocks in the lakes.  ;-)

Designated inappropriately many years ago, time they were updated. 

Tongue in cheek/devils advocate of course, but I'd vote for continued updating of paths and bridle ways rules.  A guy on a bike is very much still just like you only not walking. 

[jands]

in Scotland a path is a path, open to all as long as it is used responsibility and with respect for other users, as a result there is very little conflict. I don't advocate the use of all so called footpaths at all times , some are quite obviously not suitable, but we should not look for conflict when there really isn't any justification (apart from feeling self righteous by having a go at someone)

[tlr]

There haven't been many studies done on this, but the conclusion seems to be no difference between 1 walker and 1 biker in terms of erosion. 1 horse rider causes significantly more damage than either biker or walker. And of course there are far more walkers than bikers and riders combined.

I am a bit conflicted on this issue - I have ridden my fair share of footpaths in the past, especially at night but equally I used to agree that rules were rules and hence should be followed. However the rapid motorwayisation of lots of local Peak bridleways and tracks has had me re-thinking my position. As the legal places to ride are smoothed and flattened by the Peak Park or Sheffield Council then the only fun, interesting, challenging trails left are footpaths.

The question is does this legitimise the riding of them now?


A couple of erosion study conclusions:

Wilson and Seney: Hooves and feet erode more than wheels
In 1994, John Wilson and Joseph Seney of Montana State University published "Erosional Impacts of Hikers, Horses, Motorcycles and Off-Road Bicycles on Mountain Trails in Montana" (12). The study tracked 100 passages by each of the four groups over control plots on two trails in national forests. For some of the passages, the researchers prewet the trail with a fixed quantity of water using a rainfall simulator. The researchers measured sediment runoff, which correlates with erosion.

Wilson and Seney found no statistically significant difference between measured bicycling and hiking effects. They did find that horses caused the most erosion of the trails, and that motorcycles traveling up wetted trails caused significant impact. They also concluded, "Horses and hikers (hooves and feet) make more sediment available than wheels (motorcycles and off-road bicycles) on prewet trails, and that horses make more sediment available on dry plots as well" (p.74). Wilson and Seney suggested that precipitation will cause erosion even without human travel, and this factor may significantly outweigh the effects of travel. Trail design, construction, and maintenance may be much more important factors in controlling erosion than excluding specific user groups.

Chiu and Kriwoken: No significant difference between hiking and biking trail wear
In a study whose publication in Annals of Leisure Research is pending, two researchers at the University of Tasmania, Australia, conducted an experiment on an abandoned fire road to compare track ("track" is the term for trail in Australia) impacts from hiking and bicycling. For the study "Managing Recreational Mountain Biking in Wellington Park, Tasmania, Australia" (2), the authors had hikers and bicyclists pass test plots 400 times each, and measured the surface profile of the track before, during, and after the passes. They compared flat, steep, wet, and dry conditions. Chiu and Kriwoken found no significant difference in the trail wear caused by the two user groups. They did find significant impact from skidding tires, and they also found that impacts on wet trails were greater than on dry for both types of use.

[johnx2]

Some people get upset when they see other people breaking rules, regardless of whether the rule breakers are doing any harm, and regardless of whether the rules are sensible or not.

This is absolutely fair enough given society runs on rules (I get hot under the collar about disabled parking spaces ffs).

But access, in England anyway, is about rules acknowledging accepted practice. So Yorkshire Water or Bradford Council's encouraging moves to 'allow' tracks be ridden that have been ridden for years would not have happended if no one had been riding them. (If you can pick the bones out of that string of negatives).

There’s little logic in current ‘not-on-the-map minetrack vs footpath vs bridleway vs green lane vs locals only cheeky secret single designations, where I ride at least. You can ride considerately or like a dick on any of the above. 'Like a dick' includes tearing apart wet moorland and pissing off walkers.

[dave]

I challenge anyone to walk along the top of Stanage or Burbage South, take a look at all the huge unsightly scratches and scrape marks on protruding grit blocks caused by bikes (which incidentally aren't bridleways) and tell me that bikes don't do more damage than walkers. In places on stanage and burbage it looks disgraceful, given these places are national treasures.

[tlr]

I agree Dave, I'm embarrassed by the marks left by pedal strikes and chainrings on Stanage and Burbage. The studies above relate only to erosion of the trail, not unsightly marks. But you could argue that most of those damged rocks have only been exposed by years of walker caused erosion. The path on the top of Burbage is particularly rut like

And again I am increasingly bothered by the plethora of chalk marks on crags and boulders and the great bare patches of dirt under popular problems or crags.

Unfortunately it is virtually impossible for people to enjoy the countryside in the numbers that they do without leaving a mark of some kind.

Then there is the 'thin end of the wedge' argument. Whilst I said that I can see why some people now think its justifiable to ride footpaths because the enjoyment has been stripped from the bridleways, I am sure that the off-road MXers and 4x4 lobby could argue exactly the same, perhaps with even greater justification as they have had routes removed entirely, not just sanitised.

I'd imagine that most mountain bikers would see themselves as more closely allied with walkers than motorbikers, but I wouldn't be too sure that all walkers would see it the same way.

Lots of problems, no obvious solutions.

[andyd]

as a law abiding rider,I can agree to the fact that bikes damage footpaths,especially grass.
I'd like to think that footpaths are safe to walk along too, without worrying about getting myself, or the sprogs out of the way.

[twoshoes]

Every argument against biking on footpaths here - erosion, damaged rocks, 'safe' footpaths - could be applied to a bike on a footpath OR a bridleway.

Given that, surely bikes should be allowed everywhere or banned everywhere. There's usually no physical difference between a bridleway and a footpath anyway.

Every user group does things others don't agree with. With bikes, the key is probably educating riders as to when, where and how a track is appropriate to use - like the BMC does for climbers. The problem is that there's no national body, so many riders don't appreciate the effect of their actions.

[fatdoc]

Difficult issues, well summerised by twoshoes.

Tlr has a very valid point regarding the decimation of Mtb entertaining bridle ways. But are footpaths the answer?

To a degree yes, but Dave also makes an excellent point, the tech trails are stratched up.

Fwiw when I did a lot more XC Mtb than I do now ( mainly because so many XC trails are ruined - id rather go for a run to get the same lung burst) there was a consensus opinion of all those that rode " naughty trials" to not ride such in broad daylight, esp at weekend. I've challenged - in a nice as a way as I can - many MTBers in burbage on days when the valley is rammed... All have not been short tempered.


Again, fwiw, the agreement on riding snowdon is viable here, that is no 9 to 5 riding.

This doesn't address the issue of the current english law, which I believe to be wrong. But in terms of all user groups, bike should always heed to all others. The concept of no 9 to 5 MTBers has, IMO some attraction to places such as derwent.

The state of play is a bit bonkers ATM, only a couple of years back Mbr magazine ( big mag for XC ) gave its annual calander out, 1/4 of the shots were on footpaths! An oversight indeed, but displays the endemic use of footpaths for XC.

The now near totally mainstream sort of XC Mtb is  now ridiculously squeezed around the eastern peak, again... No easy answer.

If get the urge to ride derwent I would.... Either at dawn / at night.

For those non bikers reading this scratches are not a direct side effect of a trail been ridden, in the main they are a sign of poor technique at best.

[Teaboy]

And of course there are far more walkers than bikers and riders combined.

Not true here in East Lancs or if it is it gives lie to the idea that bikes do no more damage than walkers. Even in the four yes I've been going up there mountain bikers have made a proper mess of Harcles Hill and Bull Hill area. Trenches have appeared leading up to the edges of burns and once that happens bikers then scoot off either side and in short order another one appears. Where once a walker might have hoped across from one bank to another this is no longer possible. Downhill sections are similarly torn up as bikers descend at speed and then skid hard on the breaks, it's hard to see a walker doing similar.

[fatdoc]

Sounds like a piss poor skill level of Mtber round there....

[twoshoes]

And of course there are far more walkers than bikers and riders combined.

Not true here in East Lancs or if it is it gives lie to the idea that bikes do no more damage than walkers. Even in the four yes I've been going up there mountain bikers have made a proper mess of Harcles Hill and Bull Hill area. Trenches have appeared leading up to the edges of burns and once that happens bikers then scoot off either side and in short order another one appears. Where once a walker might have hoped across from one bank to another this is no longer possible. Downhill sections are similarly torn up as bikers descend at speed and then skid hard on the breaks, it's hard to see a walker doing similar.

There are plenty of places trashed by walkers/climbers/motocross bikes/doggers that could be highlighted. But that would just be tit for tat scoring and basically pointless.

It's also not really the point, is it? It's got nothing to do with footpaths or bridleways as that designation isn't based on anything logical. Everybody damages things in some way. What's needed is for bikers to think a little more.

[Teaboy]

Sounds like a piss poor skill level of Mtber round there....

I wouldn't know but I doubt there is something in the water which makes them uniquely bad and land mangers won't make the distinction between good and bad riders. As with all access issues the actions of few affect the whole.

[SA Chris]

When it comes to scratching up rocks with pedal strikes, a walker with a pair of nice pointy crampons and titanium tipped walking poles because there's 1/2" of snow on the ground can do a fair bit of damage if they are careless enough.

[mrconners]

I think it needs some sort of unwritten rule set being produced (that would make it written then).
As climber's we do an ok job of looking after the place and historically have a good code of conduct. Yes there will be exceptions but the media could do a lot more in promoting good riding etiquette.  The white and dark peak mtb guides have a good section on "the rules" including sticking to marked trails and not engaging in my pet hate, riding on the bloody grass next to any rocky sections (as on rushup edge) and making trails a mile wide. But thats 

[johnx2]

I'd say it was kind of the point.

[ianv]

As climber's we do an ok job of looking after the place and historically have a good code of conduct

Can someone explain to me why; placing, removing and falling onto nuts and friends, bolting routes, erosion at the base of crags and boulders, cleaning routes, dry tooling/mixed winter climbing, shitting at the crag etc... is so much more environmentally friendly and acceptable than the damage done by pedal strikes and slight trail conflict caused by riding on footpaths. Climbers cant really claim any moral high ground.

Live and let live, no one got hurt and everyone had a nice day out. 

[dave]

As climber's we do an ok job of looking after the place and historically have a good code of conduct

Can someone explain to me why; placing, removing and falling onto nuts and friends, bolting routes, erosion at the base of crags and boulders, cleaning routes, dry tooling/mixed winter climbing, shitting at the crag etc... is so much more environmentally friendly and acceptable than the damage done by pedal strikes and slight trail conflict caused by riding on footpaths. Climbers cant really claim any moral high ground.

Live and let live, no one got hurt and everyone had a nice day out.

True. But if we all take the line that every "other outdoor user group has got to be whiter than white before we get our shit in order" then nothing would every improve. Some dickheads still come into the national parks and set fires, drop carlins cans and flytip, so why should any of us be worried about our behaviour eh?

Chalk marks and grass wearing away under problems are genuine problems, but most chalk washes off, and ground can be reseeded and restored to an extent, like under deliverance etc.

Knackered rocks at the top of the crag will take years (if left alone) to build up any sort of patina again, and the physics gouges will still be visible for decades.

Wear and tear due to gear placements and bolts etc are bigger problems, but to be fair most of the damage here is only felt or relevant to climbers themselves. I terms of rock damage we're pissing on our own chips, not everyone elses ( generally speaking). Knackered gear placements as stanage are only seen by climbers, but fucked up and scratched rocks at the top of the crag are seen by anyone with eyes, be they climber, walker, runner, biker etc.

It seems to me that the problem with MTB and 4x4 use is that with any kid of frequency of use in any given area the routes used will get fucked pretty quickly (relative to walking) and require maintenance, and at the moment the only cost effective way of "maintaining" is to level them as we've seen in the peak lately. And then of course the route then loses all appeal - you need challenging terrain as an inherant part of the activity, but challenging terrain gets knackered quickly, especially if its grit or sandstone. Basically I don't see how mechanised transport activities are every going to have any kind of sustainable future in somewhere as concentrated (and surrounded by densely populated urban areas) as the Peak unless you go for restricting all use to purpose built centres, which would work about as much as offering the Works as a permanent alternative to Stanage would.

[mrconners]

The only real solution is education. And I agree climbers, along with many groups, are not exactly blameless. I do a lot of caving and you should see some of the activities that go on underground (no bad jokes here please).
However making a statement where you suggest that I just ignore it and that "no-one got hurt" is either designed as a wind up or missing the point.


The whole reason for this post is it just annoys me that some folk feel that its ok to do whatever the fu*k they want as long as they are enjoying themselves. The Peak is creaking under the strain, you can almost feel it sometimes on busy days and if people continue to abuse the place then its going to be royally fu**ed. The continued pressure from gear companies, advertisers, large groups and just us humans in general must be moderated and controlled or we run the risk of ruining what we love.


Im depressed now.


Oh well, at least no-one got hurt  (sorry)

[Johnny Brown]

The discussion of whether boots or bikes cause more erosion is something of a moot point. The question is whether opening a path to both will cause an increase in the total traffic, and hence more erosion. In many cases it will.

Whether or not a path is open to bikes, horses or motors may not always be obvious on the ground, but the presence of traffic changes the atmosphere of the path. To some that is significant, and worth respecting - anyone who finds motors on Stanage causeway offensive must accept that others feel the same way about bikes on certain footpaths. In both cases folk have observed the change in use and increased erosion in their lifetime. Anyone bombing down singletrack must accept that it isn't a lot of fun for any walkers on (or jumping off) the same path.

So I don't support a blanket opening of access to all, but I do think there are a lot of cases where things could change. On the Eastern moors - currently the exemplar for moorland management hereabouts - managers have consulted with users and are in the process of opening several paths to bikes, including the one along the top of Froggatt and Curbar. Stanage is more complicated but you never know...

[twoshoes]

The whole reason for this post is it just annoys me that some folk feel that its ok to do whatever the fu*k they want as long as they are enjoying themselves. The Peak is creaking under the strain, you can almost feel it sometimes on busy days and if people continue to abuse the place then its going to be royally fu**ed.

How do people feel about people riding (responsibly) on easily-damaged bridleways v durable/rock/flagstone footpaths?