[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?

[twoshoes]

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.

And will correspondingly drop elsewhere.

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.

'Must accept'? 'Offensive'? (Really?) I don't like people smoking and find it offensive, but that doesn't mean I want it banned.

Anyone bombing down singletrack must accept that it isn't a lot of fun for any walkers on (or jumping off) the same path.

Absolutely. Anyone who doesn't slow down and give way is a dick of the highest order.

As far as I'm concerned, it's all about picking an appropriate track for the time and conditions and riding politely and considerately. So I do support open access (with a degree of education) for all. Someone may not like me riding a footpath in the dry when it's quiet, making sure I stop for walkers and that's entirely up to them.

[Johnny Brown]

And will correspondingly drop elsewhere.

Not following your logic there. You think more people on bikes means less people on foot? It doesn't. It typically means more users total, and therefore more erosion.

'Must accept'? Strong language... ('Offensive'? Really?)

Yeah, people feel that and you need to accept it. You don't have to agree with them, but you should acknowledge traffic and erosion in 'wild' places has that effect on people who love the area.

[twoshoes]

Not following your logic there. You think more people on bikes means less people on foot? It doesn't. It typically means more users total, and therefore more erosion.

You can't ride two trails at once - if traffic goes up (which I agree it will) on one trail, it will go down on another.

Yeah, people feel that and you need to accept it. You don't have to agree with them, but you should acknowledge traffic and erosion in 'wild' places has that effect on people who love the area.

I do accept that other people have different views. (Not sure I'd ever find someone riding/driving/climbing loudly 'offensive', but hey ho.) That doesn't make them more or less valid than mine.

You seem to be suggesting that mountain bikers don't 'love' those 'wild' areas too. Crag erosion/the mess horses make of tracks near stables/the width of the walker's paths up Scafell and Helvellyn all upset me and affect my enjoyment. Sorry if that seems like a petty argument, but the only difference is that those activities are allowed, whereas bikers aren't due to an outdated law that was never based on anything other than land ownership.


Curious as to what you think of my last point in the previous post.

[Johnny Brown]

You can't ride two trails at once - if traffic goes up (which I agree it will) on one trail, it will go down on another.

I doubt it - cycling is getting more popular. Mountain biking didn't even exist 25 years ago. The sort of ramblers I sit on access committees got to know the moors before it started.

Not sure I'd ever find someone riding/driving/climbing loudly 'offensive', but hey ho.

A lot of folk will tell you some 4x4ers behaviour is offensive. If you go to Rowtor you may well meet a lady who finds bouldering deeply offensive. I'm not saying I do, but these people have a say too.

You seem to be suggesting that mountain bikers don't 'love' those 'wild' areas too

Um I never said anything of the kind. I'm not currently an active mountain biker but many of my friends are, and I have dabbled in the past. I don't see them any different to any other user.

Crag erosion/the mess horses make of tracks near stables/the width of the walker's paths up Scafell and Helvellyn all upset me and affect my enjoyment.

Yes. I was using the 4x4s as an example for the same reason - it is all a sliding scale and different folk draw the line in a different place.

bikers aren't due to an outdated law that was never based on anything other than land ownership

Really? It may be different in the Lakes, but round here the access rights round here have a rather long and complicated history. Right of access along paths and bridleways is actually one of the few areas where the law rides roughshod over the wants of the landowner.

Curious as to what you think of my last point in the previous pos

That you think you can ride responsibly if illegally? Fine, I'm sure you can. I am a habitual trespasser. But conferring that either a right involves opening things up to many more users who may be not so discerning. Do you avoid bridleways in the wet too? Would you extend your right to ride to all the open country under the CRoW act?

[twoshoes]

I doubt it - cycling is getting more popular. Mountain biking didn't even exist 25 years ago. The sort of ramblers I sit on access committees got to know the moors before it started.

Now that's an entirely different point. As outdoor use becomes more popular then of course trails will become more eroded, by all groups. And mountain biking certainly is growing - their use could be spread over a small number or trails, or over a wider number, so my point stands. (It's irrelevant how long it's been around.)

A lot of folk will tell you some 4x4ers behaviour is offensive. If you go to Rowtor you may well meet a lady who finds bouldering deeply offensive. I'm not saying I do, but these people have a say too.

Some peoples' behaviour is indeed indefensible. That's a little different from the activity itself being offensive. But you are quite right - but people have differing opinions and they're all valid.

Um I never said anything of the kind. I'm not currently an active mountain biker but many of my friends are, and I have dabbled in the past. I don't see them any different to any other user.

Sorry to have misunderstood you.

Really? It may be different in the Lakes, but round here the access rights round here have a rather long and complicated history. Right of access along paths and bridleways is actually one of the few areas where the law rides roughshod over the wants of the landowner.

I'm probably wrong, but I was thinking further back than that - to when the various rights were drawn up. As far as I'm aware, there are a few examples of bridleways ending at parish boundaries and such like, rather than the rights existing logically.

That you think you can ride responsibly if illegally? Fine, I'm sure you can. I am a habitual trespasser. But conferring that either a right involves opening things up to many more users who may be not so discerning. Do you avoid bridleways in the wet too? Would you extend your right to ride to all the open country under the CRoW act?

I try to ride responsibly. And try avoid bridleways that will be damaged in the wet - things like sticking absolutely to the stones on the plantation bridleway, rather than dropping in to the mud; avoiding Winstonelee Tor and Cut Gate etc.

I don't see bikes as different to any other user. Yes, I'd like to see a right to ride opened up. (Realistically, they are also a lot more limited by the ground so are less likely to leave tracks). But I get pretty upset by what I see as many rider's lack of respect for the countryside, so I wouldn't want to see this happen until there was some sort of self-policing (as with climbing) or a BMC equivalent to produce guidelines. The sort of thing that many involved with RideSheffield and the like try to promote.



Anyway, cheers, it's been interesting.

[Ti_pin_man]

theres a lot of them and us in this thread when truth be told we all need to learn to put up with each other and our chosen pastimes. 

Mountain biking as a sport has peaked and settled, numbers arent about to magically increase. 

Studies have indicated that erosion is about the same foot versus tyre excepting typically in cases where poor skills usually mean downhill trails and skids cause more damage. 

The access difference between paths and bridleways is based on age old definitions that were very clearly not interpretted universally. 

Bike riders will not continue use of paths that are unsuitable, they'll just find an alternative usually. 

Largely I try and live and let live.  My own line in the sand is drawn at motorised vehicles.  4x4 and motorbikes impact is exponential campared to cycles/feet/horses.

 

[Johnny Brown]

theres a lot of them and us in this thread

I don't think so, I don't really have strong feelings either way. But I am involved in the kind of consultation that can lead to improvements for mtb access, and I'm just trying to make the point that you need to be realistic about what you ask for. I don't think that a 'right to ride' as discussed above is a realistic option at this point in time, and campaigning for one could actually prove counter-productive. What you need to do is pick specific routes and be prepared for some give and take.

[john horscroft]

Good thread.  Been a while but here goes.

Mountain biking is a comparatively young sport and lacks a national representative/governing body to both fight its corner and encourage good practice.  Climbing is incredibly fortunate to have the BMC.  There were certainly times in the past when climbers blotted their copybook in spectacular fashion but these days land managers, environmental bodies and national parks see the BMC and climbers as a responsible group who can be relied on to self-police.  It's going to take time for MBing to be seen in the same light.  Local groups such as Ride Sheffield and PMBA are trying to make up for the lack of such a national body and are making strenuous efforts to alter riders habits.  On the whole, I think MBers are a decent bunch and most of them are taking on board the rules of the trail - give way to everyone, look after the trails and be nice!  There will always be a minority who screw it up for the rest just as there are walkers, climbers and horse riders who do there respective sports no credit.  In time, that minority should shrink as we get the message out. 

As for trail erosion, it is an utter red-herring.  We all erode the trails and after last years filthy summer, any number of trails were three or four times their usual width because of walkers.  However, I don't say that in any pejorative sense.  We use trails, they get eroded.  It's what we do then that matters.  I've been out on numerous volunteer dig days for the Eastern Moors and the Wildlife Trusts and mountain bikers seem to see it as part of the sport to give something back by helping out.  Secondly, when the Peak Park were spending thousands of pounds dropping flags all over Kinder and Bleaklow to reduce erosion, I didn't moan about the cost to the public purse.  People walk, they erode the paths, it has to be put right.  I deplore pedal strikes on rocks as much as I deplore the utter mess made by people who don't know how to place gear on Stanage, but it's not a hanging offence.

Which brings me to the really knotty question - where should mountain bikers ride.  I ride footpaths.  I don't do it at busy times, I give way to everyone, chat to them and I can say with hand on heart that in the last two years, I've had barely a cross word with anyone I've encountered.  Most of the walking groups I meet seem to take MBers in their stride because they've got kids or even grand kids who ride bikes.  I offer a number of caveats - mountain bikers have to be whiter than white.  We must give way, we must get involved in trail maintenance and we must deal constructively with land managers.  The situation in the Peak is complicated by the fact that compared to other national parks, the bridleway network is woefully inadequate.  This is a historical anomaly illustrated admirably by bridleways on Derwent Edge that stop as soon as they hit the Derbyshire border - Derbyshire didn't want the extra responsibility of all those pesky bridleways, so they simply ignored them.  Many so-called footpaths are bridleways in all but name.  Equally, if I'm faced with the choice between an easily eroded bridleway on a winter's day or a sustainable footpath, which should I ride?

If we were designing rights of way legislation for the 21st century, let's just say we wouldn't start from here.  The current legislation dates from the sixties when MBing wasn't even around.  We want more young people to enjoy the great outdoors, and MBing is a great way to achieve that, the health benefits are obvious and my 70 year old missus wouldn't get to see half the great places she does on foot.  Access for all surely??  Live and let live, it really is as easy as that....

[fatdoc]

 

All put far more eliquantly than previous ramblings.

Thanks JH.

[john horscroft]

....I've had second thoughts.  Maybe screwing up gear placements on Stanage is a hanging offence....

[twoshoes]

I don't condone capital punishment, but well put John. My thoughts exactly.

[johnx2]

Mountain biking is a comparatively young sport and lacks a national representative/governing body to both fight its corner and encourage good practice.

   

 

theres a lot of them and us in this thread

 

Absolutely. And when it comes to 'them' it's the crossbikers I can't stand. Jumpy ony offy drop handlebar wannabe Belgian bastards.

And the downhillers. It's got pedals so call it a bike, a 'rig' is where you drill for oil. And lose the gut, Darth.

And 29er riders can get back to the circus (and 27.5" riders make your minds up.)

XC bridleway bothering bores? Radical to the power of sick! (And shut that gate.)

Leaving what? "Freeride"? "All mountain"? Let's face it: XC.

Trail centre wobblers? BMX bandits? Come on down!

Anyway, here endeth my pitch for the nationally representitive governing body, together we can really get one over the roadies...
 

[Snoops]

Good thread.  Been a while but here goes.

As for trail erosion, it is an utter red-herring.  We all erode the trails and after last years filthy summer, any number of trails were three or four times their usual width because of walkers.  However, I don't say that in any pejorative sense.  We use trails, they get eroded.  It's what we do then that matters.  I've been out on numerous volunteer dig days for the Eastern Moors and the Wildlife Trusts and mountain bikers seem to see it as part of the sport to give something back by helping out.  Secondly, when the Peak Park were spending thousands of pounds dropping flags all over Kinder and Bleaklow to reduce erosion, I didn't moan about the cost to the public purse.  People walk, they erode the paths, it has to be put right.  I deplore pedal strikes on rocks as much as I deplore the utter mess made by people who don't know how to place gear on Stanage, but it's not a hanging offence.

  The situation in the Peak is complicated by the fact that compared to other national parks, the br Live and let live, it really is as easy as that....

Sorry John I cant go along with that. For the record I do MTB, although I mainly fell run. People talk about studies, u say 'red herring' but I have my eyes, and having been out walking/running on the many trails and trods in the Peaks for over 20 years, bikes are  knackering paths.

I've crossed paths with MTB's on Kinder Northern edges, the SSI at Wyming Brook, Stanage edge , Curbage edge, but its all the 'quiet' trods that get the most hammering. Little grassy paths that have not eroded for 20 years get deep tyre ruts in, fill with water and get even more churned up, its unsightly and widens and fucks the path.
I'm not sure that then putting flag stones five years later on what was a small path is progress?

I find it ironic how after all the anti - 4x 4 rhetoric on UKB over the past few years (and in particular Houndkirk), its now a regular daily occurrence to see MTB's cutting down from Houndkirk Tor into Burbage. I used to bump in the 'few' like yourself doing it in night, now as a result there are permanent tyre tracks/ruts down what was a grassy trod.
With you giving tacit support to 'claiming' the footpaths, what was a 'few' are becoming the majority, and the 'few' are now cycling over the top of Carlwark, and yes the MTB ruts stay there for months.

[Ti_pin_man]

 

awesome reply johnx2.

I think JH's reply hits the nail well on the head.

[john horscroft]

So Snoops, erosion by walkers and runners is ok, but by bikes it's a mortal sin?  Surely we can agree that the Peak is becoming increasingly popular with all users and all users damage paths.  Therefore we have to maintain those paths.  The flags I was talking about were helicoptered in to repair paths that were only used by walkers - I still see it as a small price to pay for access to continue.  Equally, I know of mountain bikers who are going out on the sly and repairing paths - seen any walkers or runners doing that recently?  There is no perfect solution to this unless, perhaps, you think that mountain bikes should be banned?

[twoshoes]

bikes are  knackering paths.

I've crossed paths with MTB's on Kinder Northern edges, the SSI at Wyming Brook, Stanage edge , Curbage edge, but its all the 'quiet' trods that get the most hammering. Little grassy paths that have not eroded for 20 years get deep tyre ruts in, fill with water and get even more churned up, its unsightly and widens and fucks the path.

As mentioned above, this applies equally to bridleways and footpaths. That's a question of getting riders to think about when, where and how they ride - there is no physical difference between a footpath and a bridleway. (There will always be places where it's inappropriate to ride/climb/dog walk.)

If we as climbers can think about chalk, gear placements, erosion under boulder problems etc, mountain bikers can too. 

[john horscroft]

bikes are  knackering paths.

I've crossed paths with MTB's on Kinder Northern edges, the SSI at Wyming Brook, Stanage edge , Curbage edge, but its all the 'quiet' trods that get the most hammering. Little grassy paths that have not eroded for 20 years get deep tyre ruts in, fill with water and get even more churned up, its unsightly and widens and fucks the path.

As mentioned above, this applies equally to bridleways and footpaths. That's a question of getting riders to think about when, where and how they ride - there is no physical difference between a footpath and a bridleway. (There will always be places where it's inappropriate to ride/climb/dog walk.)

If we as climbers can think about chalk, gear placements, erosion under boulder problems etc, mountain bikers can too.

Couldn't agree more.  Which brings me back to my original point - the BMC is the model to which MBing should aspire.  The BMC is now a much more effective body than it was even ten years ago, it doesn't happen overnight.  I can remember the original furore when we planned to do repair work under Deliverance but no one would object to that now.  At the moment, small local groups of volunteers are trying to do what they can.  Equally, the MB community has to take a long hard look at its impacts and learn to co-operate with land managers and other user groups.  In the Peak, we're already doing that very effectively on the Eastern Moors and with the Wildlife Trusts.  Long way to go though....

[Snoops]

So Snoops, erosion by walkers and runners is ok, but by bikes it's a mortal sin?  Surely we can agree that the Peak is becoming increasingly popular with all users and all users damage paths.  Therefore we have to maintain those paths.  The flags I was talking about were helicoptered in to repair paths that were only used by walkers - I still see it as a small price to pay for access to continue.  Equally, I know of mountain bikers who are going out on the sly and repairing paths - seen any walkers or runners doing that recently?  There is no perfect solution to this unless, perhaps, you think that mountain bikes should be banned?

Hi John, your attempting to paint me as some anti-biking grumpy walker, (which is far from the truth, and would be hypocritical as I'm often out on a MB ), whilst ignoring the irony of your efforts to prevent illegal 4x4 use on Houndkirk whilst doing the same on a bike!
 My point was some 'once' relatively thin, grassy paths are now mud baths and yes its down to bikes in winter and wet conditions rutting the fuck out of them. The rapid and exponential damage over the past 3 or 4 years on certain paths is directly related to MB's, no matter how convient it is for you to blame it on all of us.

And no, of course I don't want MB's banned (little bit of a silly question), I would (like a few others by the looks of things), like people to stop taking the piss on sensitive paths and ignoring the consequences of what are really, quite selfish actions.

[tomtom]

Shirley its a matter of common sense and mutual respect?

[tlr]

Shirley its a matter of common sense and mutual respect?

Of course, same as everything in life - which is why we need laws instead!

[mrconners]

 And no, of course I don't want MB's banned (little bit of a silly question), I would (like a few others by the looks of things), like people to stop taking the piss on sensitive paths and ignoring the consequences of what are really, quite selfish actions.



These are pretty much my sentiments. I know I shouldn't get so annoyed by it (as my wife constantly tells me) and yes its not the end of the world but it just needs pointing out. Debates like this which are polite and well informed can help to improve the situation (which does need improving, I think we are in agreement here).
The idea of a BMC equivalent for MTB's with some media exposure in a similar style to the 10 commandments would be a great start.
Ride it , protect it, respect it.


This has been a good thread, thanks for all the input.

[fatdoc]

 

Well worth the time, and hopefully help the greater good..that we all seek.

[Ti_pin_man]

I posted up the question on singletrackworld forum to ask how many of 'us' mountain bikers are members of a representing organisation, I asked about CTC (cyclist touring club) and I was pleasantly surprised that the straw poll showed actually quite a large proportion of bikers are.  this is good news although there were a few comments on what exactly the CTC do for the money, I guess in the same way climbers have the occasional moan about the BMC.