 |
Singletrack Magazine |
 |
| |
STW Retail Partners |
|
| |
Shopping Therapy |
|
| |
Join the chaos |
|
|
|
Author: simonfbarnes
Date: 15/05/07 12:33
As read in latest IMBA newsletter:
Chain Gang Rescues Grizedale Road
A party of some 30 mountainbikers, motorcyclists and 4WD enthusiasts
spent the last weekend in April repairing a badly drained ancient
highway ("Fox Road") in Grizedale forest which in parts had become an
unrideable.
Organised by a consortium of offroad motoring organisations, the group
were supplied with diggers and transport to drain the route which was
then overlain with stone provided by the Forestry Commission - all
under the watchful eye of the Lake District National Park. Photos at:
<http://forums.mud-club.com/viewtopic.php?p=394851#394851>
IMBA reckons that this is an excellent case of cooperation for the benefit of all users.
IMO this pointless vandalism. Before, the puddle was great fun to ride
through, now it's a dull fire road. I hope to hell they leave the rest
of the track alone!
before:
 click pic for more
after:
|
|
Reply To This Message
|
|
Author: onespeedperv
Date: 15/05/07 12:37
Boo : ( They want it nice and sanitised for all the family bikers !
At least the puddle stopped them in their tracks and left the rest of the trail for real bikers!
|
|
Reply To This Message
|
|
Author: simonfbarnes
Date: 15/05/07 12:41
but what if someone falls out of their wheelchair on the first rocky bit or catches their high heels on something ?
|
|
Reply To This Message
|
|
Author: tootall
Date: 15/05/07 12:49
IMHO they have developed a teeny part of the countryside, in a
known area that attracts less rugged users, so others can re-use an
ancient road. If you want undeveloped, then get away from Grizedale and
let it draw people in so you can romp around the untouched areas with
less of them to trip over.
|
|
Reply To This Message
|
|
Author: fagus
Date: 15/05/07 12:54
That was a great puddle. Stopped in the middle of it once and had to walk out - wet!!!
The Fox road was in no way unrideable, but the £99 Halfords Special
owners couldn't handle it, could they? It was one of the good descents
in the Lakes. I'll have to go back just to check what sort of a mess
they've made of it.
Another good reason to avoid IMBA.
|
|
Reply To This Message
|
|
Author: scienceofficer
Date: 15/05/07 12:56
I fail to see why you're whining about boring fireroad Simon.
Although you take great pictures, it seems you spend a large amount of
time riding boring doubletrack with the bog trotters anyway.
Its all there for you to see on your own website.
|
|
Reply To This Message
|
|
Author: simonfbarnes
Date: 15/05/07 13:00
so others can re-use an ancient road
I'd have been happy if they'd rebuilt the sissy track at the side, as
it had collapsed, for those that didn't want wet feet (and walkers) but
instead they've turned it into fire road :-(
If they can't tackle the puddle they probably won't do the stuff like this either:
|
|
Reply To This Message
|
|
Author: Hoops
Date: 15/05/07 13:06
well if it's anything like Roych Clough then a few years of
Motorto55ers and 4WD clubs will get it back to it's good old self :-)
|
|
Reply To This Message
|
|
Author: simonfbarnes
Date: 15/05/07 13:09
I fail to see why you're whining about boring fireroad Simon.
Although you take great pictures, it seems you spend a large amount of
time riding boring doubletrack with the bog trotters anyway.
FYI most of the Lakes is ancient doubletrack, but still rocky and
exciting and NOT fire road :-) And yes, we will use lower quality
trails to link stuff together. Boring it isn't!
Boring doubletrack:
also you should bear in mind that I tend not to take photos on the best bits as I'm too busy clinging desperately onto my bike!
|
|
Reply To This Message
|
|
Author: tootall
Date: 15/05/07 13:11
Well - if it is defined as an unsurfaced highway along which
vehicles are permitted and someone decides to maintain it, fair play to
them. Just because it has fallen into disrepair does not give anyone
the right to complain when it is repaired. I'm guessing you were there
at the time to picket their activities and attempt to demonstrate their
foolishness by riding back and forth through the puddle, thus
demonstrating its intrinsic value to all users?
|
|
Reply To This Message
|
|
Author: simonfbarnes
Date: 15/05/07 13:21
Just because it has fallen into disrepair does not give anyone the right to complain when it is repaired
just because I may not have a right to do something does not prevent me from doing it (yet)
I'm guessing you were there at the time to picket their activities
I had no idea it was happening, but anyway I have more interesting ways to spend my weekends :-)
I think the point is the whole track is a delightful blend of drop offs
and tumbled rock, with the puddle previously acting as a slight
qualifier to deter the unwary
|
|
Reply To This Message
|
|
Author: camelback
Date: 15/05/07 13:21
interesting to see this picture just a couple before your ones of the puddles
http://www.bogtrotters.org/rides/2006/25mar/DSC_0088.jpg
which is titled " chewing up the track :o( "
surely instead of the sad face you should be encouraging them to chew it up even more cause you're so hardcore?
ancient route in periodic maintenance shock!
|
|
Reply To This Message
|
|
Author: gingerflash
Date: 15/05/07 13:22
Simon - look at Iron Keld - it was ruined for a couple of years by
being sanitised for tree-felling. It was turned into a dull fire road
and used by forrestry lorries.
after a few years of use and rain it has gradually broken up and is now
much better with big rocks appearing, slabs of bedrock and a few small
stream crossings. in 5 years, it'll be properly knackered and fun to
ride again.
|
|
Reply To This Message
|
|
Author: nickc
Date: 15/05/07 13:29
"Road gets repaired" shock headline.
Happens all the time. It's part of life's rich tapestry
|
|
Reply To This Message
|
|
Author: simonfbarnes
Date: 15/05/07 13:33
surely instead of the sad face you should be encouraging them to chew it up even more cause you're so hardcore?
I suppose when I see motocrossers spinning their wheels I'm minded of
Foul Moss (Dent) where the track has been made almost unrideable. When
the trail got bad they took to riding along the wall instead and
destroyed that too :-(
http://www.bogtrotters.org/rides/2005/29may/foul.jpg
|
|
Reply To This Message
|
|
Author: jonathan
Date: 15/05/07 13:42
That's not really very different to this one is it:
Only most of those tracks going around the puddle appear to be mountain bike tyres.
What would have happened to that track if it hadn't been drained and repaired?
You really must have problems riding with those massive blinkers on.
|
|
Reply To This Message
|
|
Author: traildog
Date: 15/05/07 14:22
Flat road filled with water gets replaced by flat road with no
water. I hardly think this is "vandalism" or "sanitising" the track.
I think jonathan points it out best when he says what is the difference
between the picture you posted of above Dent and the one of "before"...
|
|
Reply To This Message
|
|
Author: STR4NG4
Date: 15/05/07 14:32
Oooh I think that still looks far to rough, can they not put some
tarmac over the top of it, I dont want to ding the rims on my 6k top of
the range full sus, think i will give it a miss and stick to Glentress
its much smoother than that.................well apart from the braking
bumps in the berms that is!!!
IMBA , FC and HSE rule!!!
hehehhehehehe
Seriously though it aint worth stressing over theres plenty of natural
water splashes and technical riding they will never get their hands on
just ride that instead.
|
|
Reply To This Message
|
|
Author: mr_agreeable
Date: 15/05/07 14:48
Looks like a proper job that will get more interesting as it beds in. Really good that the 4x4 people got involved too.
I have to say that in my experience MTBers don't tend to arrive at
trailbuilding sessions with diggers. Maybe we should be doing joint
trail days with the petrolheads?
|
|
Reply To This Message
|
|
Author: SooBaliaS
Date: 15/05/07 14:52
a bit of local bridleway was 'sanitised' not so long back,
they put in a 12" lump so water drains to the side of the trail, I was
quite annoyed as a fast loose descent became a 'road' overnight.
then someone came a cropper a few weeks back, now there are two signs pinned to trees on the descent saying
slow, ramp 100yds!
slow, ramp 50yds!
when what they really meant is, relax, off the brakes, weight back a touch, Jump coming up!
as said above, a year of MXers and Horses and some serious storms will
rip it up good and proper, till then i ride up it instead.
|
|
Reply To This Message
|
|
Author: simonfbarnes
Date: 15/05/07 15:16
I'm pleased to see a wide range of support for sanitisers and
motcrossers - I'd hate to see the forum degenerate into a gaggle of
knee-jerk "me too" conformists marching in unthinking lockstep!
That's not really very different to this one is it:
There's a world of difference, that puddle was fun to ride through,
whereas I've never seen anyone clear the dreadful sinking bog on Foul
Moss
Only most of those tracks going around the puddle appear to be mountain bike tyres.
that's the sissy track for the nervous. I would have been happy to see that mended.
What would have happened to that track if it hadn't been drained and repaired?
It has been much the same for the last 10 years without intervention
You really must have problems riding with those massive blinkers on.
Ah, I apologise for being so blinkered, how foolish of me to want demanding trails to ride on :-(
|
|
Reply To This Message
|
|
Author: flything
Date: 15/05/07 15:29
"Ah, I apologise for being so blinkered, how foolish of me to want demanding trails to ride on :-("
The reality is we have to share the outdoors with all sorts of people
who don't share your demands for challenging trails, they want
something else, sometimes this leads to compromise.
|
|
Reply To This Message
|
|
Author: traildog
Date: 15/05/07 15:41
But it's a puddle. It's not demanding - it's just wet and unpleasant (to many).
If it was a rocky technical trail you were showing then I can understand why you are complaining.
What you're arguing is if something should be sorted if you enjoy
riding through it or not. Foul Moss you don't, so that needs fixing,
Fox road you do so that shouldn't be fixed?
|
|
Reply To This Message
|
|
Author: snix
Date: 15/05/07 15:46
Will go and ride there tomorrow.....glad the puddles gone really.
However.....it's not a difficult track to ride up or down so hope no
more remedial work has taken place to iron ot the rocky sections.
In the past week we have discovered a dumping of hardcore on the Dub
Road over to Garburn Pass to soften out the only rocky sections that
make it interesting. Also the rocky descent off Boredale Hause towards
Hartsop has been 'disappeared' and now has no rocky sections at all.
This process should concern us all as we seem to have little control over it's spread.
|
|
Reply To This Message
|
|
Author: labrat
Date: 15/05/07 15:47
Ah, I apologise for being so blinkered, how foolish of me to want demanding trails to ride on :-(
But there you miss the point - as a road it has to, by law, be kept
passable and in good condition for ALL users, not kept as a route that
Simonfbarnes (TM) thinks is fun.
its not a mountain bike route - its a road! therefore can be maintained
in a way sympathetic to MTB but not to the exclusion of other legal
users.
|
|
Reply To This Message
|
|
Author: saintly
Date: 15/05/07 15:48
Put in to context all they have done is dry up a 40 metre long
section of what still remains a fantastic 1200 metre long ascent or
descent.
I rode up there last Sunday and was glad of the fact I
didn't have to ride through hub deep water towards the end of my ride,
opinions are just that, thats what makes life interesting.
|
|
Reply To This Message
|
|
Author: mr_agreeable
Date: 15/05/07 15:48
It's also really unfair to make out that IMBA was the driving force
behind this work, implying that they are wasting resources fixing up
trails that don't need to be changed. The work was done by volunteers
from different user groups and it's not even clear whether any of them
were IMBA members.
IMBA are involved with a lot of different types of trails and riding,
from multi-user routes like the one here, to some of the most
challenging MTB trails in the UK.
They are at the forefront of promoting sustainable enjoyable mountain biking. You make newbies ride through puddles. ;-)
|
|
Reply To This Message
|
|
Author: saintly
Date: 15/05/07 15:56
Some of the views here certainly reiterate the comments made in an
article in what mtb this month regarding the national trusts upgrading
and "improving" of certain access routes around the lakes.
If you don't voice your opinions during the consultation stages of
upgrades what right do you have acting all hard done by after the
event. The national trust in Cumbria are trying to actively engage with
all sorts of user groups to see how things can be improved or left in
some cases to increase enjoyment. This I believe is where IMBA is using
its weight, not in wanton destuction of the fell side for the greater
good.
|
|
Reply To This Message
|
|
Author: tootall
Date: 15/05/07 16:00
I don't know - I think the attitude of 'if you don't ride through a
deep puddle you're not tough enough for the rest of the trail' has some
merits. It is really inclusive and helps bring people to our healthy
outdoor life isn't it?
Perhaps someone can take our man to one of the 'lakes' I believe the
area known as the 'Lake District' is littered with. He can splosh about
in the shallows to his hearts content. Doh! Forgot - he'll have
something to say about those pesky boat owners and polluting canoeists
wanting to share his space.
|
|
Reply To This Message
|
|
Author: uglybassplayer
Date: 15/05/07 16:16
Can i just say simon there are some great photo's here :-)
Best let you get back to your "discussion"
Tally ho
|
|
Reply To This Message
|
|
Author: simonfbarnes
Date: 15/05/07 16:16
But it's a puddle. It's not demanding - it's just wet and unpleasant (to many).
as usual you're missing the point Paul - this is the thin end of the
wedge. The puddle is not the challenge, it's what follows - it only
helped to deter those that wouldn't like the rest either.
If it was a rocky technical trail you were showing then I can understand why you are complaining.
just over the crest that's exactly what it is - you should know you've ridden it!
Foul Moss you don't, so that needs fixing, Fox road you do so that shouldn't be fixed?
it's not about ME, my criterion is interesting riding. Foul Moss is
unrideable to practically everyone. And I never suggested it needed
fixing, only that is HAS been destroyed. I'd rather it was left alone
if the alternative is a fire road.
It's also really unfair to make out that IMBA was the driving force behind this work
I said: "helps ... ?" - leaving that open
|
|
Reply To This Message
|
|
Author: simonfbarnes
Date: 15/05/07 16:21
I think the attitude of 'if you don't ride through a deep
puddle you're not tough enough for the rest of the trail' has some
merits. It is really inclusive and helps bring people to our healthy
outdoor life isn't it?
correct - if you don't enjoy riding through the (easy) puddle you
should stick to the NFT or stay home and shave your legs :-) The only
justification for riding through water is that it's huge fun...
|
|
Reply To This Message
|
|
Author: StuN
Date: 15/05/07 16:51
It's hardly vandalism is it? Your arguement is self-centred
bollocks and misuses an emotive term. Someone has drained a puddle that
you might have founnd it fun to ride through, each to their own.
Doesn't make it wrong to drain it does it?
Personally I'd be inclined to see that work as a substantial
improvement - it might be a huge puddle but it doesn't look much like a
challenge nor a pleasure and would probably leave people with wet feet
on an otherwise dry-footed day and there's more than enough wet feet
days as it is!
|
|
Reply To This Message
|
|
Author: simonfbarnes
Date: 15/05/07 16:53
and helps bring people to our healthy outdoor life isn't it?
unless they confine themselves to those elusive 'dry' months these activities frequently involve getting wet :-)
But there you miss the point - as a road it has to, by law, be kept passable and in good condition for ALL users
thankfully this is not currently the case on 'Fox Road' and I hope it never is - that would be a real tragedy :-(
|
|
Reply To This Message
|
|
Author: simonfbarnes
Date: 15/05/07 17:05
It's hardly vandalism is it?
I think that's exactly what it is. The puddle was only ever an obstacle to the nervously inclined.
Your arguement is self-centred bollocks and misuses an emotive term.
I'm thinking once they've smoothed that bit out they can carry on down
the hill removing every interesting dropoff, rock chute and puddle
until it's a steep fire road :-(
Sadly I don't have many pics to show you how good it is as I always have better things to do on it than take photos...
Traildog:
even tiny Daphne can do it:
|
|
Reply To This Message
|
|
Author: labrat
Date: 15/05/07 17:16
But there you miss the point - as a road it has to, by law, be kept passable and in good condition for ALL users
thankfully this is not currently the case on 'Fox Road' and I hope it never is - that would be a real tragedy :-(
My apologies - I meant to type the word highway instead of road - to which the statement most certainly does apply!
(ok, we could split hairs and point out that a bridleway actually does
not need to be kept in shape for a cyclist, only horse riders and
walkers - however I think its fair to keep it simple to make the point!)
|
|
Reply To This Message
|
|
Author: simonfbarnes
Date: 15/05/07 17:42
we could split hairs and point out that a bridleway actually does not need to be kept in shape for a cyclist
since most 'maintenance' work on trails is so hamfisted I'd rather it wasn't done at all.
Examples of good trail work:
1) Back of Pen-y-Ghent to Foxup Moor
2) Mickle Moss (between Staveley & Kentmere)
3) Threshfield Moor and Weets/Airton nr Malham (marginal)
4) Lonsale Fell (Skiddaw) after landslide
5) Walna Scar (only the 200m below the gate Dunnerdale side) - formerly a bog
that's all I can think of in the North West
|
|
Reply To This Message
|
|
Author: AnalogueAndy
Date: 15/05/07 17:44
Blimey, loathed as I am to be seen as springing to the defence of sfb ;-) there are a couple of things that concern me..
I don't know this section but the consensus does seem that it could
benefit from some work. But the 'repair' does seem a bit overkill. Why
did they not just install some low-key drainage to reduce or address
the 'flooding' issue. Why did they choose to fill it 'right up' (and
with loose 'Type 1' that will erode anyway)?
Perhaps it was because this was a 'joint venture' with the
4x4 crowd. I'm all for 'collaboration' on trail repairs but not if that
means we end up repairing them predominantly to 'satisfy' 4x4 users.
I've been involved in trail repairs locally and we always aim to do the
minimum. Address drainage issues properly first. Any fill is 'rough
compacted'. We use locally quarried and crushed stone (at varying
grades) etc.
This kind of repair might be the 'easiest' in the short term but is it
the 'best' for all and the most sustainable in the long term?
|
|
Reply To This Message
|
|
Author: pridds
Date: 15/05/07 17:45
I think what IMBA (if thats who it was) have done a great job on
the Fox and if i'd known that they were doing it i would have gone
along to help them.
All they have done is to fill in the frankly enormouus puddle (that i
enjoyed riding) and reworked the step down in the gully (that i didn't
enjoy riding).
Now that thye have done it i will certainly ride the Fox more than i did before
Ian
|
|
Reply To This Message
|
|
Author: tandemjeremy
Date: 15/05/07 17:50
Clearly that bit of trail needed repair. The big puddle was making
people ride and walk around it hence the muddy bit to the side. Without
some work being done the erosion would have continued to spread as
people avoid the boggy bits.
Sorry SFB - I ain't agreeing with you on this one.
Remember one persons fun MTB route is anothers dangerous eroded path.
|
|
Reply To This Message
|
|
Author: simonfbarnes
Date: 15/05/07 17:51
reworked the step down in the gully (that i didn't enjoy riding).
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGGH!!! No, no, please tell me they didn't
:-( This is EXACTLY what I was getting at, once you start there's
always the temptation to do 'a bit more', and before you know it you've
got instant bland rubbish :-(
I wasn't whining before but now I'm whimpering :-(
|
|
Reply To This Message
|
|
Author: goognoog
Date: 15/05/07 17:57
chin up old bean ..... at least you have some trails to moan about unlike us Yam Yams in Brum :-(
|
|
Reply To This Message
|
|
Author: pridds
Date: 15/05/07 17:58
I said reworked it not removed it. There is a now a few more lines down it than there was before.
|
|
Reply To This Message
|
|
Author: simonfbarnes
Date: 15/05/07 18:03
at least you have some trails to moan about unlike us Yam Yams in Brum :-(
you have my deepest sympathy :-(
However, sadly, ours are being steadily nibbled away in a death of a thousand cuts by wrongheaded dogooders...
Without some work being done the erosion would have continued to spread as people avoid the boggy bits.
then why didn't they fix THAT then ?? It's not as if 4x4s or
motocrossers are going to be bothered by 9" of water (with solid
foundations). It would have been far easier to fix the sissy track and
then everyone would have been happy
|
|
Reply To This Message
|
|
Author: simonfbarnes
Date: 15/05/07 18:05
a lot of Simon's photos seem to be of girls arses from what I can see.
... and are you suggesting there's anything wrong with that ? Should they be under a burkha ?
|
|
Reply To This Message
|
|
Author: Dave
Date: 15/05/07 18:10
Just out of interest, how was it a "qualifier" if there was a chicken route around it?
|
|
Reply To This Message
|
|
Author: goognoog
Date: 15/05/07 18:13
BTW I'm in Grizedale this friday for a ride (first time) so i'll be
able to give a proper comment on whats going ............ I'll have a
penny blind it still better than Brum tho ;-)
|
|
Reply To This Message
|
|
Author: simonfbarnes
Date: 15/05/07 18:13
if there was a chicken route around it?
due to collapse the sissy track had become harder to ride than the puddle!
|
|
Reply To This Message
|
|
Author: Dave
Date: 15/05/07 18:16
So qualification wasn't skill based then.
The only useful contribution I've seen from you so far on this thread is the picture of someone drowning a Marin.
:o)
|
|
Reply To This Message
|
|
Author: labrat
Date: 15/05/07 18:20
bridleway actually does not need to be kept in shape for a cyclist
since most 'maintenance' work on trails is so hamfisted I'd rather it wasn't done at all.
Simon- just to reiterate, this isnt a question of what you'd rather or
rather not - its a question of law - the trail HAS to be kept safely
passable to the normal class of users - in the case of bridleways,
thats walkers and horses... cyclists have to accept the route on an as
seen basis, and the route does not have to be maintained for cyle use.
you may not like it - but thats the law as it stands.
|
|
Reply To This Message
|
|
Author: simonfbarnes
Date: 15/05/07 18:28
So qualification wasn't skill based then.
I said "with the puddle previously acting as a slight qualifier to deter the unwary"
The only useful contribution I've seen from you so far
Well, I was shocked that Colin Palmer at the IMBA thought this was a
good thing. Previously I had thought they were well intentioned if
somewhat ineffective, but now it seems they are part of the problem :-(
If people want to ride bland stuff there is much of the NFT and
countless fire roads available in Grizedale, but this track is far more
fun - unless the rest of it gets the same treatment :-(
|
|
Reply To This Message
|
|
Author: BadlyWiredDog
Date: 15/05/07 18:40
Really good that the 4x4 people got involved too.
Yes, our good chubby mates sat behind the wheels of their
trail-destroying tin boxes, what a fantastic balance this is to counter
the destruction they wreak in the name of outmoded legal claptrap and
their own selfish desire to chunder round the outdoors with no regard
for anyone else...
Here's a fine example of their fascinating days out experiencing the outdoors (again).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9Me3pgwpTk
Warning, the above is visual mogadon. Nothing happens. *******.
|
|
Reply To This Message
|
|
Author: labrat
Date: 15/05/07 18:41
simon the precise comment that you got from Coli n was:
SFB: >I am horrified at the vandalisation of Fox Road in Grizedale. There was nothing wrong with it before
CP: The photographs I saw suggested otherwise!
Its a long way from suggesting that anyone has recommended levelling
the whole route and turning it into a fireroad - get a grip on exactly
whats happened here, a puddle that you enjoyed riding through, has been
drained! which it had to be as it was impassable to other users who
there was a legal duty to consider (you comment yourself that the
bypass had collapsed)
You really are starting to approach broken record status with "I like
riding through puddles and noone else thinks its fun" (as Rohloff seem
to have thought too)
|
|
Reply To This Message
|
|
Author: simonfbarnes
Date: 15/05/07 18:43
Simon- just to reiterate, this isnt a question of what you'd
rather or rather not - its a question of law - the trail HAS to be kept
safely passable to the normal class of users - in the case of
bridleways, thats walkers and horses... cyclists have to accept the
route on an as seen basis, and the route does not have to be maintained
for cyle use.
you may not like it - but thats the law as it stands.
and this matters why? Luckily this law is widely flouted, as complying
with it costs money. I think the trail in question is only a designated
cycleway, the OS map just has those round blobs, though it seems to be
treated as a BOAT, and it has one of those incomprehensible 'Hierarchy
of trails' notices at the bottom. Here it is: SD 345 952 to SD 357 955 http://www.streetmap.co.uk/streetmap.dll?G2M?X=334600&Y=495270&A=Y&Z=3 (arrow at former puddle)
In any case, my opinions are not dictated by law and I can say what I like
|
|
Reply To This Message
|
|
Author: tootall
Date: 15/05/07 18:47
I'll tell you what. I'll just bang on and on about this on a website and that'll put them right! There! That told em!
IMBA are prepared to put up. If others are not, then they get to work
with others to make things better for the majority. Do something about
it. Or don't do something about it. See which one works best for you.
|
|
Reply To This Message
|
|
Author: labrat
Date: 15/05/07 18:47
thats not a cycleway - its an ORPA/unclassified county road, learn
your OS maps (which might explain something about your rides and
footpaths eh!
legally - a road!
thats why it matters!
|
|
Reply To This Message
|
|
Author: simonfbarnes
Date: 15/05/07 18:50
You really are starting to approach broken record status with "I like riding through puddles and noone else thinks its fun"
Clearly I am not the only one:
there was a legal duty to consider
perhaps someone can tell us the actual legal status of this track, as various maps I have show it differently ?
|
|
Reply To This Message
|
|
Author: BadlyWiredDog
Date: 15/05/07 18:58
OK, the astonishign thing about IMBA - and tell me it's not true -
is how feckin' little IMBA does to interest or engage the interest of
the average mountain biker.
Come on, show some imagination. Make me want to join IMBA, enthuse me,
convince me. From what I've seen all IMBA people do is play the guilt
card - 'Oh, what have you done? At least we're doing something'...
How come I live smack bang in one of the most popular mountain biking
areas in the UK and nothing from IMBA ever impinges on my awareness bar
their forum guilt trip stuff?
I'm a climber and a member of the BMC but the BMC gives me reasons to
be a member. It gives me third party insurance. It represents my sport
in a credible way. It tackles serious safety and technical issues. What
does IMBA do except tell me I should feel bad for not being in it?
No disrespect to the individuals involved in IMBA on the ground, but it's systemically useless.
|
|
Reply To This Message
|
|
Author: labrat
Date: 15/05/07 19:26
Simon - its the:
U5050
357955 to 336944
Grizedale - Esthwaite (Satterthwaite/ Hawkshead) 2.72 KM long
only restriction on traffic is that its 1 way traffic 4x4s west to east.
details here:
http://www.lake-district.gov.uk/gtga_dr_list.htm?callback=1&keyword=county&department=Corporate&category=Other&month=Month&year=2007&hidesearch=true
BWD - some valid points there that I've also commented on in the past
both privatley and publically - you'll note that I have not attempted
to lay a guilt trip on anyone, only pointed out the correct legal
position (I'm not an IMBA board member, but am part of the consultation
group)
|
|
Reply To This Message
|
|
Author: simonfbarnes
Date: 15/05/07 19:30
IMBA are prepared to put up. If others are not, then they get to work with others to make things better for the majority
but if they're going to trash perfectly rideable trail obstacles then i'd rather they didn't do anything :-(
Or don't do something about it.
This is my position, leave them alone and ride whatever exists as best you can, or if you must, build new stuff somewhere else!
its an ORPA/unclassified county road, learn your OS maps
due to my partial colour blindness I was not aware of the existence of
this classification. I just see brown blobs. As far as I can understand
it means 'some unspecified kind of right of way'
I'll just bang on and on about this on a website and that'll put them right!
Having tried it, I find the consultative process dull and irrelevant. I
have posted what I think is an informative warning about the tendencies
of IMBA, so people can choose whether or not to support it (I shan't).
The best I can say is that in most cases, where work IS done, corners
are cut (metaphorically :) to save money and much of the shoddy work
soon gets washed away by the elements or trashed by powered vehicles :-)
|
|
Reply To This Message
|
|
Author: BadlyWiredDog
Date: 15/05/07 19:32
Sorry that was a bit ranty. I'd just like to see IMBA being more
proactive in engaging mountain bikers and I'd like an organisation to
represent mountain biking that seems a bit more passionate about the
sport.
We can have a chat at mayhem if you're there, in between me gibbering lots :-)
|
|
Reply To This Message
|
|
Author: simonfbarnes
Date: 15/05/07 19:44
only restriction on traffic is that its 1 way traffic 4x4s west to east.
heh, I wondered how they'd get UP without winching :-)
|
|
Reply To This Message
|
|
Author: tootall
Date: 15/05/07 20:02
Try looking at the Definitive Map for the gospel of what is what.
Ask yer local Town Hall - it is the only authoratitive document -
anything else does not have standing.
It was a puddle, caused for whatever reason. The puddle was causing
lesser mortals to create erosion to go around the 'perfectly rideable
trail obstacle' and therefore exacerbate the situation.
A joint decision was made to rectify this. I applaud it and, from what
I can see, they have done a good and sympathetic job. The majority are
in the right - it is a key component to a democracy. Get over it and do
somethng positive about the future then.
|
|
Reply To This Message
|
|
Author: northwave
Date: 15/05/07 20:10
It's only cosmetic, like giving the trail a facelift, within about
five years of normal weather the trail will begin to degrage
particularly in a high precipitation area like the Lake District. Of
course one exceptional event could scour the whole lot out. Mother
nature's like that.
Many trails us mountain bikers use are bridleways and as such are multi
use (Outside of trail centres like the 7Stanes, etc). What might be ace
fun on a mountain bike might be totally unpassable by horseback. Share
the trails, share the love of being outdoors, whatever the weather or
time of year.
|
|
Reply To This Message
|
|
Author: labrat
Date: 15/05/07 20:13
tootall
fraid its a little more complex than that - UCR's are not shown on the
definitive map as they are roads maintainable at public expense, and as
such recorded on the list of streets - normally held by a different
part of the local authority.
the document above from the lakes website is an up to date list of UCR's and their current restrictions
|
|
Reply To This Message
|
|
Author: simonfbarnes
Date: 15/05/07 20:30
doesn't this beg the question, if there's a legal requirement to
'maintain' it at public expense, why is it being done by volunteers ?
I can only hope that in fact the local authority cannot be arsed to do anything and the rest will be left unscathed.
As for it being a triumph of democracy, I suspect most citizens might
feel they didn't want their money wasted on maintaining rights of way
for a priviledged few, and I wholeheartedly agree with them (if for
different reasons) :-)
|
|
Reply To This Message
|
|
Author: nickc
Date: 15/05/07 20:32
All I've got from this thread is SFB stamping his little feet
shouting "I want my puddle back, I don't care about any-one else" in
the kind of rant my 6 old daughter indulges in.
|
|
Reply To This Message
|
|
Author: tootall
Date: 15/05/07 20:40
Thanks labrat.
I'd rather see my money being spent on repairing any track or trail
than giving scrotes free holidays, funding poor governmental
administration, subsidising the idle or any other such scheme. You have
a very exclusive view of your surroundings that does not put you in any
form of context. You are quite at liberty to do that and I wish you the
very best of luck. I will, however, take a very inclusive view of my
surroundings and seek the common ground where that is possible.
|
|
Reply To This Message
|
|
Author: simonfbarnes
Date: 15/05/07 20:42
All I've got from this thread is SFB stamping his little feet shouting "I want my puddle back, I don't care about any-one else"
luckily I'm not responsible for your failures in comprehension :-)
I think you could summarise my point as "It were better not done". As
far as caring about what other people think, were I not trying to
influence that to some degree I wouldn't bother posting stuff. As I've
said, a nice reconstructed sissy track would have met most users' need
for dry feet.
|
|
Reply To This Message
|
|
Author: 5mudge
Date: 15/05/07 20:49
see you there googs :-)
cannock is voluntary and they do a mighty fine job :-)
|
|
Reply To This Message
|
|
Author: simonfbarnes
Date: 15/05/07 20:52
I'd rather see my money being spent on repairing any track or trail than giving scrotes free holidays
I'll go with the reverse. Observation suggests that about 90% of the
money spent on trails makes things worse rather than better :-(
You have a very exclusive view of your surroundings that does not
put you in any form of context. You are quite at liberty to do that and
I wish you the very best of luck. I will, however, take a very
inclusive view of my surroundings and seek the common ground where that
is possible.
please explain what that means ?
|
|
Reply To This Message
|
|
Author: nickc
Date: 15/05/07 20:53
luckily I'm not responsible for your failures in comprehension :-)
Oh, don't worry, I comprehend your point well enough, I'm just interpreting.
You still come across like a ranty 6 year old.
|
|
Reply To This Message
|
|
Author: nick3216
Date: 15/05/07 21:54
Author: simonfbarnes
Date: 19/02/07 20:13
IMO there's no point arguing if you're not willing to be proved wrong and to learn from the experience :-)
He's still not learning, so everyone else might as well stop banging their heads against the brick wall that is his obstinacy.
Man: Well, an argument's not the same as contradiction.
sfb: It can be.
Man: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a definite proposition.
sfb: No it isn't.
Man: Yes it is. It isn't just contradiction.
sfb: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
Man: But it isn't just saying "No it isn't".
sfb: Yes it is.
Man: No it isn't, an argument is an intellectual process...
contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other
person says.
sfb: No it isn't.
|
|
Reply To This Message
|
|
Author: tootall
Date: 15/05/07 21:56
My point is that you see the puddle as something for 'tough' (my
word) mountain bikers who are tough enough for that trail. You are
seeing that puddle in isolation and excluding other users of the exact
same trail - a very exclusive view. Most people here can put that
puddle into context ie a flooded part of a road that people are going
around and further eroding the local area. I go with the majority view
that it was a good thing for all - an inclusive view putting a puddle
into context.
|
|
Reply To This Message
|
|
Author: The_Sanity_Assassin
Date: 15/05/07 22:23
I can't help thinking that if anyone other than SFB had posted the
original topic then it would have 'provoked' a response with an
entirely different tone.
I must be on my own, when first joining the forum, thinking that Simon
was a bit of a clownshoes - but subsequently warming to his views and
interweb 'persona' (and not the other way round). I know he enjoys a
good argument, a wind-up and a discussion, but I do tend to share his
opinion that if it's on the floor then it's game to be ridden. There's
too many precious fookers ride bikes and threads like these just put
the spotlight firmly on them. I'm sure some of you lot are just roadies
on the wrong bits of kit, you're so anal.
|
|
Reply To This Message
|
|
Author: dulldave
Date: 15/05/07 22:39
aren't you all taking simon a little too seriously?
Bit of SFB bashing going on I reckon. i'm sure he can take it though :0)
|
|
Reply To This Message
|
|
Author: mr_agreeable
Date: 15/05/07 23:18
BadlyWiredDog, I'm not a fan of green laners, but the fact is they
currently have the right to use certain routes, and I'd much rather
they took an interest in maintaining them than wrecking them and
hooning off somewhere else. And while I don't agree with the "thin end
of the wedge" argument that 4x4ers use, a lot of the things you're
saying sound like the knee-jerk arguments you hear against MTBers from
middle-aged people with Leki poles.
I'd like an organisation to represent mountain biking that seems a bit more passionate about the sport
Problem is, building officially sanctioned mountain bike trails or
trying to get footpaths upgraded to bridleways is never going to be
cool. In fact you have to be pretty motivated to do these sorts of
things in your spare time.
|
|
Reply To This Message
|
|
Author: illuminated_523
Date: 15/05/07 23:24
but subsequently warming to his views and interweb 'persona
You're not the only one; I think BWD raises a lot of valid points
particularly the idea that chummying up with 4x4 drivers and MXers is
hardly the most astute strategic move - symbolically linking hands with
the worst track/road/puddle/canalway eroders surely gives horsey types
and walkers the excuse to drive a wedge between (the perceived) them
and us.
Compared to the increasingly mtb friendly and visibly active (in terms
of legislation etc) ctc i've never seen the imba as much more than big
fish-small ponders; to be honest the treatment of the concerns of a
local rider in this thread doesn't fill me with confidence that they're
good at listening to anyone who deviates from their 'vision,' even if
it is a local mtber clearly affected by their joint efforts with their
new chums.
Oh fù**** it, what am i saying, tarmac the entire country and be done
with it - people should have the right to drive their cars every
goddamn where, it's what we're fighting a war in iraq for, we owe it to
the brave boys and girls out there to drive, drive, drive like we've
never driven before, all hail the new oil!
|
|
Reply To This Message
|
|
Author: djglover
Date: 15/05/07 23:40
Personally I think that puddle is better filled in. If you want more trails for mtbers then build some?
|
|
Reply To This Message
|
|
Author: simonfbarnes
Date: 16/05/07 01:02
That man is not so much a spanner, more a full Snap-On socket set.
thanks! That's the nicest thing anyone has said to me all day :-)
My point is that you see the puddle as something for 'tough' (my word) mountain bikers
no, I see it as fun :-) As for the 'context' thing, I don't get that at all...
If you want more trails for mtbers then build some?
no, I just want the existing ones left alone.
sfb: No it isn't.
You have me to a tee - almost :-) From my point of view I usually advance a reason rather than just flat contradiction.
In fact you have to be pretty motivated to do these sorts of things in your spare time.
I think that whole process is designed to suck in anyone with motivation and gradually bore them into indifference :-(
|
|
Reply To This Message
|
|
Author: tootall
Date: 16/05/07 07:23
"As for the 'context' thing, I don't get that at all..."
I know. Which is why I tried to explain it. This is like wrestling a pig. I'm out of here.
|
|
Reply To This Message
|
|
Author: BadlyWiredDog
Date: 16/05/07 08:25
I must be on my own, when first joining the forum, thinking that
Simon was a bit of a clownshoes - but subsequently warming to his views
and interweb 'persona
No, I think Simon makes sense. If you look at the principles here rather than banging on about one puddle.
So who was it who decided that this puddle in particular was worthy of
being upgraded and what's to prevent them from upgrading other bits of
similar trail in future?
Is no-one, apart from me and a couple of others concerned at the idea of IMBA jumping into bed with the 4x4 lobby?
Personally I think IMBA should be doing their utmost to lobby for the
revision of the outmoded laws that allow recreational motorised use of
'roads' that were clearly never designed for cars or motorcycles to
use, not encouraging it.
I'm never going to support a mountain biking organisation that thinks
4x4s are somehow acceptable regardless of the current legal situation.
Perhaps if you took a step back from your micro-spats with Simon, you'd
realise that there are important issues here that are worth considering.
|
|
Reply To This Message
|
|
Author: labrat
Date: 16/05/07 09:09
BWD
the problem is that that argument cuts both ways - you can hear the ramblers saying "should not allow bicycles on mountain paths that were clearly never designed for them to use"
IMBA's position is that all routes should be classified for highest
sustainable user, however this carries risk in that we would gain a
great many routes, but probably lose some too! however a complete
rewriting of several hundred years of legal development is a big hill
to climb... unlikley in the near future and till then we're stuck
withthe system in place.
there are routes which CAN sustainably support MPV use, with reasonable
maintenance - all routes, even footpaths, require maintenance to some
extent, and its notable that in the case of UCR's the councils have
been claiming maintenance budget for decades and spending it elsewhere
(on expensive office chairs and political correctness campaigns) - I'd
rather see the 4wd users going out and doing maintenence on their
legally permitted routes, and putting in place voluntary
bans/moratoriums on use for those routes which cannot support use -
than just allowing them to fall apart and saying its the councils job,
which is an allegation I would equally lay at the door of most MTB'ers
|
|
Reply To This Message
|
|
Author: mr_agreeable
Date: 16/05/07 09:46
Is no-one, apart from me and a couple of others concerned at the idea of IMBA jumping into bed with the 4x4 lobby?
I think you're reading too much into this situation. What I'm saying is
that from a pragmatic point of view, the involvement of 4x4 users in
this case was a good thing. As far as I know it's the first time this
has happened and it's a bit soon to be jumping to conclusions about the
relationship between IMBA and motocrossers. If you read the original
post, it says nothing about any direct involvement from IMBA at all.
I should also make it clear that my only connection with IMBA is that
the volunteer group I organise is affiliated with it. As far as vested
interests go, that makes me about the same as SFB.
I think that whole process is designed to suck in anyone with motivation and gradually bore them into indifference :-(
It's more effective than a quickly-buried rant on a notoriously cynical internet forum.
|
|
Reply To This Message
|
|
Author: traildog
Date: 16/05/07 10:26
I think BWD has made a very good point. Although I see Simon going
on about just a puddle which I personally am quite happy to have filled
(I hate riding through puddles - don't see any fun or challenge in it
at all), if it was anything more exciting or challenging I'd be in up
in arms about it!
I agree that getting into bed with motorised user groups can only be a
bad thing. Bikes and walkers can co-exist happily and we should be
arguing that point. That is a different point that 4x4s and motorbikes
cause huge amounts of no sustainable damage to the countryside. Any
attempts to put these two arguments together is wrong.
Personally, I'm happy to give the CTC my money as a mountain biker.
Perhaps it's a pity about their imagine, but it's a pity that mountain
bikers are so image led at the moment.
I am very unsure about IMBA as their message seems to have been very
confusing. When they first came to my attention, they seemed to be
pushing the whole dedicated trail centre idea far too much. Now, they
seem to be getting into bed with 4x4s which in my (maybe short sighted)
opinion should be banned from national parks (what's a nation park
about if not protecting the countryside?) And as for having a path
suitable for the highest sustainable user - well that's a wheel chair
user isn't it? In which case all tracks should be flattened (which is
pretty much what seems to be happening near to where I live).
|
|
Reply To This Message
|
|
Author: simonfbarnes
Date: 16/05/07 11:00
and excluding other users of the exact same trail
No one cares more about inclusivity than I. I lead a beginner ride
every Saturday of the year, where I take all comers, usually getting
about 15 riders, sometimes twice that number.
However, this does not mean that I support reducing all trails to a
level of dullness that will allow any novice to ride them confidently.
My comment about the puddle acting as a qualifier wasn't elitism, just
a recognition that anyone put off by 9" of water would struggle to ride
more than a few hundred metres of the rest of the track, which soon
gets very rocky.
|
|
Reply To This Message
|
|
Author: simonfbarnes
Date: 16/05/07 11:19
It's more effective than a quickly-buried rant on a notoriously cynical internet forum.
I beg to differ - you can sit on committees till the cows come home
without making any significant difference on the ground at all.
(I hate riding through puddles - don't see any fun or challenge in it at all)
in that case it was very thoughtless of me to make you ride through that exact puddle when you came out with us :-)
Of course, the puddle is irrelevant, what I'm objecting to is the
creeping destruction of trails which one might suppose were motivated
by pure spite for all the added amenity value :-(
NOT traildog, not fun:
|
|
Reply To This Message
|
|
Author: simondbarnes
Date: 16/05/07 11:35
just a recognition that anyone put off by 9" of water would
struggle to ride more than a few hundred metres of the rest of the
track, which soon gets very rocky.
I like rocky stuff, I hate riding through 9" deep puddles.
|
|
Reply To This Message
|
|
Author: simonfbarnes
Date: 16/05/07 11:49
I like rocky stuff, I hate riding through 9" deep puddles.
Strange - next you'll be telling me you don't like sex because it's
messy :-| I must admit it had never occurred to me that there were
experienced riders who didn't enjoy water splashes - I just assumed
they were a natural part of off road riding. You live and learn :)
|
|
Reply To This Message
|
|
Author: samuri
Date: 16/05/07 12:17
It certainly produces some good photos, people riding through
puddles. But fun/challenge? It's just a necessity at times. Riding the
next 50 miles with wet feet when it's cold isn't really that much fun.
|
|
Reply To This Message
|
|
Author: traildog
Date: 16/05/07 12:41
Simon, you're right, that picture isn't me. I think I took the
sissy route at the puddle, since I don't have the skill for the rest of
the route. We then hung around for 10 minutes while you persuaded a
load of people (who weren't all that keen) on riding through for you to
capture photos of them. You then got the people who had already ridden
through the puddle to ride through it again so you could get even more
of it on film. I declined to join in, as I'm used to being cast an
outsider and not really one to bow to peer pressure.
They then moaned for the next hour and a half about their cold wet feet
(it was a few degrees above 0C that day). Endless hours of fun as you
say.
I also think we rode up it that time didn't we, and isn't the picture
on my profile that route? If they flattened that bit then I would be
very upset.
|
|
Reply To This Message
|
|
Author: simonfbarnes
Date: 16/05/07 14:37
You then got the people who had already ridden through the
puddle to ride through it again so you could get even more of it on
film.
strange you should recall it that way as I never do that :-)
They then moaned for the next hour and a half about their cold wet feet
I must have them better trained now :-) Though sometimes I will moan
about wet feet too, but it rarely stops me from riding through all the
water I can find...
|
|
Reply To This Message
|
|
Author: simonfbarnes
Date: 16/05/07 15:56
Simon, you're right, that picture isn't me
yeah, different day, different puddle, different bloke :-)
But fun/challenge? It's just a necessity at times
the challenge is to go fast enough that most of the water goes elsewhere (and not to fall in) :-)
It seems you Rivi riders (samuri & sdb) are dour hard men, jaws
jutting at the endless miles of barren industrial fells, a black pudden
strapped across the bars in case of a sudden squall, piercing eyes set
on a distant target no normal mortal can even comprehend...
|
|
Reply To This Message
|
|
Author: BadlyWiredDog
Date: 16/05/07 16:04
BWD
the problem is that that argument cuts both ways - you can hear the
ramblers saying "should not allow bicycles on mountain paths that were
clearly never designed for them to use"
IMBA's position is that all routes should be classified for highest
sustainable user, however this carries risk in that we would gain a
great many routes, but probably lose some too! however a complete
rewriting of several hundred years of legal development is a big hill
to climb... unlikley in the near future and till then we're stuck
withthe system in place.
All I'm going to say is that if IMBA supports motorised recreational transport then I personally want nothing to do with it.
It's either very dumb politics, where you're being manipulated by the 4x4 lobby to their advantage or just really naive.
The argument that if off-road vehicles where banned, we'd somehow be
next is trotted out again and again and never backed up with anything
except paranoia. The reality is that anyone with half a brain can see
that internal combustion engines belching out noise and fumes and
destroying trails are light years away from human-powered transport
like bikes.
Are you seriously saying that IMBA is in favour of recreational
motorised offroading? Because that's how it looks from where I'm
standing.
|
|
Reply To This Message
|
|
Author: labrat
Date: 16/05/07 17:25
33. Byways Open to All Traffic (BOATs) & Unsurfaced Unclassified Roads
33.1 IMBA UK believes that recreational motorised users should avoid
damaging routes by causing severe ruts in poorly drained areas.
In particular, IMBA UK condemns the use of winches by vehicles on byways or unclassified roads.
33.2 IMBA UK believes that where a route is being damaged by motorised
recreational users, then the problem should be managed in accordance
with the recommendations in “Making Best of Byways”. In particular, a
voluntary approach should be used initially, with Traffic Regulation
Orders advocated as a last resort.
|
|
Reply To This Message
|
|
Author: flything
Date: 16/05/07 18:38
What i found interesting is that while IMBA keen to show off their
new motorised friends the mechanised brigade don't even mention that
mountain bikers had anything to do with the work on the website hosting
the pictures.
|
|
Reply To This Message
|
|
Author: funkynick
Date: 16/05/07 19:06
Now, while I generally agree with the idea that recreational
offroading should be severely limited, and we can campaign against this
if we want to, the reality of the situation is that we do have to share
a small number of these resources with them.
There is no getting away from that at the moment, and if there is ever
a law change then great, but it's a little short-sighted to refuse to
have anything to do with them.
So, surely it's a better idea to at least be getting some co-operation
from them, and be able have some input into things if they are going to
just go ahead and do these things anyway. I guess the alternatives are
to let them continue to use these roads without any maintenance and let
them get into an even worse state? Or maybe just let them do the
maintenance without any input from mountain bikers and risk losing
sections entirely?
And strangely enough, I am sure most of the people driving and riding
these things would prefer there to be rocks and other things to make it
a challenge for them too... otherwise why bother with an off-roader at
all? Why not just drive down tarmaced roads?
|
|
Reply To This Message
|
|
Author: BadlyWiredDog
Date: 16/05/07 19:09
I'll take that as a yes then.
There isn't - for example - a 33.3 which says:
IMBA UK believes that the use of motorised recreational vehicles legal
or otherwise is incompatible with others' quiet enjoyment of the
outdoors and causes a disproportionate amount of damage to trails and
gives its full support to measures to end the use of motorised vehicles
for recreation on BOATs and Unsurfaced Unclassified Roads.
In fact, by supporting the principle that 'IMBA's position is that all
routes should be classified for highest sustainable user', it's
actually supporting the continued and possibly extended use of off road
routes by motor vehicles.
I don't want to be represented notionally or otherwise by any
organisation that believes that to be a reasonable position and is
tactitly supporting the principle of expanded off-roading by 4x4s and
trail bikes.
|
|
Reply To This Message
|
|
Author: BadlyWiredDog
Date: 16/05/07 19:12
So, surely it's a better idea to at least be getting some
co-operation from them, and be able have some input into things if they
are going to just go ahead and do these things anyway. I guess the
alternatives are to let them continue to use these roads without any
maintenance and let them get into an even worse state? Or maybe just
let them do the maintenance without any input from mountain bikers and
risk losing sections entirely?
Because the reality is that 4x4s and their drivers rarely repair
trails, they mostly destroy them and token PR efforts like the above
don't make a blind bit of difference.
I'm sure we've all seen work parties of 4x4 drivers repairing, say,
Chapel Gate or Houndskirk of a weekend, erm, not. Reality check
funkynick, it doesn't happen.
|
|
Reply To This Message
|
|
Author: BadlyWiredDog
Date: 16/05/07 19:15
The reality is that there is no good reason to support the
continued use of off road routes by recreational motorised vehicles and
lots of reasons to oppose it. Once you take away the paranoid delusion
that if they go, we'll be next, there are no other reasons.
Come on, someone give me a good reason that's not either 'we'll be
next' or 'loads of disabled people drive around in 4x4s to experience
the outdoors' which is plainly bollocks.
|
|
Reply To This Message
|
|
Author: funkynick
Date: 16/05/07 23:04
BWD... nope.. can't say I have seen any, but then I'm not sure I
have seen any mountain bikers repairing any sections of the rights of
way network either...
Or walkers come to think of it..
Most of the work I have seen being done is by National Park Authorities
and the like as a result of damage/erosion by some user group.
But if there are groups, any groups, who are willing to take a hand in
doing these things, then it's surely not a bad thing that they want to
try and do something?
|
|
Reply To This Message
|
|
Author: simonfbarnes
Date: 16/05/07 23:30
I can see BWD's point, but I can't work up much resentment against
the powered offroad vehicles, even though they do a disproportionate
amount of damage, perhaps because I hardly ever see any.
|
|
Reply To This Message
|
|
Author: labrat
Date: 17/05/07 00:01
BWD - you make some fair points - but if they are causing a dispoportionate amount of damage on a route, then clearly the use is not sustainable...
The fact is that MPV's do. legally, have access to a small percentage
of the network - one of the discussions being held at high level is the
creation of dedicated off road trail centres for 4WD users, which will
remove pressure from the network of green lanes.l Personally I beleive
that the way forward for managing MPV's is to find a managed solution
rather than a blanket ban (especially a blanket ban only within
national parks, as all this will achieve is pushing the problem onto
other nearby areas which will receive higher use and become completley
trashed)
there are myriad alternatives for managed solutions - from seasonal
restrictions, which appear to be working well on the ridgeway, to
limited number permit systems which have been trialled elsewhere.
I have never believed that the solution to a problem like this lies in
a complete ban, rather there is a stepped approach whereby a compromise
solution can be found - the same applies to MTB on snowdon (seasonal
time restrictions) or other alternatives which are being discussed and
explored for Ilkley Moor at the moment - there were myriad voices
calling for enforcement of a blanket ban there, which we have been able
to turn round to develop a responsible managed solution.
To put that argument for compromise and managed solutions whereby
mountainbiking is threatened, we need to be seen to be even handed and
fair in applying the same standards to other users - and its what
differentiates us from "certain other pedestrian orientated pressure
groups", that we are willing to sit down with land managers and look at
solutions and ways forward, rather than demanding our rights and damn
everyone else.
If a managed solution doesnt work, then a ban remains a possibility,
but theres got to be better ways forward than immediatley banning
people who have an established legal right to be there, without making
efforts to accomodate and share the trail in a reasonable fashion first.
Its largley symptomatic of a gradual slide within our society that we
are refusing to consider tolerance and compromise as a way forward in
debate or policy, and that the solution to anything that we do not
understand or sympathise with is to ban it - anything from fieldsports
to plays which ridicule religious leaders - believe you me, I have
dealt with a number of situations now in the North of England where the
immediate cry from powerful lobby groups has been "ban mountainbikers"
- I'm not alleging that 4wd is the thin end of the wedge for MTB, but I
personally believe that we should be cautious to observe and learn from
what they are going through.
|
|
Reply To This Message
|
|
Author: simonfbarnes
Date: 17/05/07 00:23
where the immediate cry from powerful lobby groups has been "ban mountainbikers"
IMO this is a shibboleth, it keeps getting dragged up, yet there is
negligible support for the idea, and even if in some moment of insanity
it were to happen there would be no money or motivation to enforce it -
were it even possible.
I agree about tolerance :-)
|
|
Reply To This Message
|
|
Author: BadlyWiredDog
Date: 17/05/07 09:16
Its largley symptomatic of a gradual slide within our society
that we are refusing to consider tolerance and compromise as a way
forward in debate or policy, and that the solution to anything that we
do not understand or sympathise with is to ban it - anything from
fieldsports to plays which ridicule religious leaders - believe you me,
I have dealt with a number of situations now in the North of England
where the immediate cry from powerful lobby groups has been "ban
mountainbikers" - I'm not alleging that 4wd is the thin end of the
wedge for MTB, but I personally believe that we should be cautious to
observe and learn from what they are going through.
I think you'll find that compromise is reached by different interest
groups putting forward their arguments in a reasoned and coherent
manner or there's nothing to compromise about, we'd just stick with the
status quo, which is 'conservatism' in its real form.
If groups like IMBA don't take a stand against an indefensible and
selfish activity like off-road driving, then how can there be a
compromise? It'll just be seen as okay. In the mean time, if you're
worried about Ramblers bashing mtbing then the worst thing we can do is
ally ourselves in any way with 4x4 drivers and trailbike riders, who
are genuinely and not unreasonably disliked by the walking lobby
because of the impact they have both on other outdoor users and the
trails themselves.
I'd love to know who the people demanding that mountain bikes are
banned are? I mean people with real influence, not just random dog
walkers and the odd rambler who are no more represented by the RA than
it appears I am by IMBA.
I 'm sorry if I seem petty, but if no-one points this out, it'll just carry on as is.
|
|
Reply To This Message
|
|
Author: funkynick
Date: 17/05/07 09:31
If you come down to it, pretty much everything we do as a leisure
activity is indefensible though... just what exactly is our 'right' to
ride a mountain bike? The only 'right' we have is what is given to us
legally, just in the same way as it is for 4x4 and motorbikes...
Yes, in purely selfish terms I'd like not have to worry about coming
across one when I am belting down a good descent, or I come across
somewhere that has been trashed by them, but then, it's also my choice
to use a shared use right of way. But anything that promotes
responsible use and them taking an interest in damage/erosion control
has to be a good thing.
And on the damage front, it's far more often that I come across
bridleways that have been wrecked by horse riders, who choose to go out
and ride when the trails can't sustain it... maybe I should be asking
them to be banned instead? :o)
|
|
Reply To This Message
|
|
Author: illuminated_523
Date: 17/05/07 09:51
Again BWD is far more convincing than alarmist staements such as,
" and its what differentiates us from "certain other
pedestrian orientated pressure groups", that we are willing to sit down
with land managers and look at solutions and ways forward, rather than
demanding our rights and damn everyone else."
Because, let's be honest, those ped-orientated pressure groups have a
pretty good track record of consistent and succesful campaigning: Right
to Roam ring any bells? The way forward for cyclists extending goodwill
in the countryside can't be from buddying up with the most destructive
countryside users - filling in the odd puddle notwithstanding.
And besides a representative from the I'MBA' the only people still
bothered about this thread are mountain bikers who feel disassociated
from the actions of an association which is intended to represent their
views - something it seems to be failing to do. It just makes me think
that the CTC is the only place that can make a positive difference for
mountain bikers as well as, gulp, other cyclists.
|
|
Reply To This Message
|
|
Author: simonfbarnes
Date: 17/05/07 11:33
Rivers are fun to ride across :)
but:
I like rocky stuff, I hate riding through 9" deep puddles.
could you not try the thought experiment of imagining that a puddle was
actually part of a river ? I have to say the functional difference
escapes me :-) The water is just as wet...
|
|
Reply To This Message
|
|
Author: mrhallorann
Date: 17/05/07 12:45
"It seems you Rivi riders (samuri & sdb) are dour hard men,
jaws jutting at the endless miles of barren industrial fells, a black
pudden strapped across the bars in case of a sudden squall, piercing
eyes set on a distant target no normal mortal can even comprehend..."
I like that Simon. Can we have that for a tagline on our 3FlatCaps website? :D
As for riding through water, Simon - thou art but a rookie:
dick hallorann
|
|
Reply To This Message
|
|
Author: simondbarnes
Date: 17/05/07 12:49
I have to say the functional difference escapes me :-)
River : Usually flowing, cleanish, nice to look at, challenging to ride through.
Puddle : Smelly, muddy, full of sheep piss.
|
|
Reply To This Message
|
|
Author: simonfbarnes
Date: 17/05/07 15:14
River : Usually flowing, cleanish, nice to look at, challenging to ride through.
Puddle : Smelly, muddy, full of sheep piss.
Oooh! Get you :-) Did you not know our immune systems benefit from
frequent challenges ? Anyway, by the time a puddle is 9" deep and 10
yards long I think we can assume the toxic content will be fairly
dilute :-)
|
|
Reply To This Message
|
|
Author: BadlyWiredDog
Date: 17/05/07 15:25
And on the damage front, it's far more often that I come across
bridleways that have been wrecked by horse riders, who choose to go out
and ride when the trails can't sustain it... maybe I should be asking
them to be banned instead? :o)
I doubt that horses have the same impact as motorised vehicles, even if
they do sometimes muddy up soft ground. But anyway, it's also about the
impact on other outdoors users. Horses are relatively quiet, obviously
not motor propelled - as far as I'm aware - and produce only natural
pollutants.
I've never had a horse gallop past me at 40mph kicking stones into my
face. I've never seen horse riders digging huge ruts into a pristine
hillside for fun. And I've never heard horses from over a mile away as
they come down the trail.
Bridleways were actually designed to be used by horses, unsurfaced
roads, for the most part were not designed to be used by motorised
transport. That's the difference.
Anyway, I'm not advcating some sort of wholesale lynching of
offroaders, I'm just questioning whether IMBA should be snuggling up in
bed wth them :-)
|
|
Reply To This Message
|
|
Top