[Closed] Bogtrotters ride the Ben on a bank holiday!

Will have a higher chance in the resulting argument being won

this argument is all win regardless of the outcome 🙂

(if any)

Read the thread- walkers have right of way in Scotland.

Yeah I know they do - but why?

Really very current too as a good pal has been wanting to do nevis for a while - been trying to talk him out of it just cos it won't be fun - not really from a responsibility perspective.

So I guess the natural conclusion is that adhering to the code rules out many big mountain rides in Scotland then - Macdui, 'Gorm, Lomond, Lawers, Vorlich, etc. What about Torridon neck of the woods - is that ok as not heavily used by others - doesn't answer the path damage / erosion issue tho. So - what is allowed - Landy track only????

It is [b]mountain [/b]biking after all!

Uphill traffic traditionally has right of way too.

"[i]I guess those that are anti this caper ALWAYS negotiate all other users in a responsible manner when out for a ride ... aye right![/i]

Er. Yes. I think so. How is this an incredible concept?

"[i]Anyway - why do the walkers have right of way over a biker, surely it is common sense and decency to give way to those coming down the hill? Isn't that normal etiquette for walker versus walker?[/i]"

It's not about right of way, it's about allowing people the time and space to pass safely. A biker has massively more momentum than a walker, and is 'armed' with a vehicle that has lots of hard pointy things on it - they should be responsible for it.

And it's not about up or down, it's about being in control and capable of avoiding a collision or forcing others to take evasive action. On the South Downs you can drive motorised vehicles for much of the way, but it would be extremely dangerous to take a landy or a motorbike and hoon it down a hill barging cyclists or walkers out of the way. The vehicle with the mass and the speed and the greater capability of causing an accident is expected to be able to control itself. On foot you can come to a stop very easily. That's a reasonable baseline - can you come to a stop? Can't stop on that technical section? Then don't go charging into it when other people are on it. It's easy enough to apply that to bikes, 4x4s or shoes equally.

"[i]Don't get me started on the erosion debate[/i]"

...because you want to? We're 10 pages in and I've not seen mention of it until now.

wiz74 - Member

I know there are masses of other places to ride but as decent wild riders does the 'challenge' of riding up (ahem) and down Britain's largest mountain have no appeal whatsoever?

Perefectly acceptable to ride the ben - just not on a busy bank holiday

Anyway - why do the walkers have right of way over a biker, surely it is common sense and decency to give way to those coming down the hill? Isn't that normal etiquette for walker versus walker?

Because that is what the law says - its the other side of open access. Its always uphill has priorty as well as well as walkers have right of way

I think everyone's definition of 'reasonable' will always be different and unless behaviour is 'dangerous' then really we should be able to share the land without the animosity

No reasonable has a legal meaning and in this case is further defined by the code. It does not have to be dangerous to be unreasonable.

this is Scotland - its different to England with different laws and different attitudes. Your right to roam comes with a duty - a duty to be reasonable and responsible. This sort of riding is not reasonable or responsible.

See the quote from the code

Uphill traffic traditionally has right of way too.

That right? Always thought it was t'other way round - everyday a school day 😆

wiz74 - Member
So I guess the natural conclusion is that adhering to the code rules out many big mountain rides in Scotland then - Macdui, 'Gorm, Lomond, Lawers, Vorlich, etc.

If you'd bothered to read ALL of the thread instead of cutting to the end, you'd have seen this dismissed as a non-issue. No one here has been calling for a ban on bikes on the mountains and none exists.

Don't confuse "right of way" with "priority", they are completely different things.

If you'd bothered to read ALL of the thread instead of cutting to the end, you'd have seen this dismissed as a non-issue. No one here has been calling for a ban on bikes on the mountains and none exists.

To be fair - the sniping part was tedious so I jumped forward - my bad.

Just seen many debates re: biking on the more popular mountains - wondering where the acceptability line is drawn.

So it is ok to ride anything, anytime as long as its done responsibly - that's the consensus? In summary - sometimes doing it responsibly means its so little fun that it ain't worth doing - i.e. nevis on a Bank Holiday / weekend / summer - Lomond at the weekend, etc.

I am keen to understand what is considered by the STW massive ok and what is not... I WANT to be on the responsible side of things but its not easy...!

So it is ok to ride anything, anytime as long as its done responsibly - that's the consensus?

Yup - and responsible is codified in the law with a little guidance as well. Linked to further back.

"[i]So it is ok to ride anything, anytime as long as its done responsibly - that's the consensus? In summary - sometimes doing it responsibly means its so little fun that it ain't worth doing - i.e. nevis on a Bank Holiday / weekend / summer - Lomond at the weekend, etc.[/i]"

Yes to all of that IMO.

So it is ok to ride anything, anytime as long as its done responsibly - that's the consensus? In summary - sometimes doing it responsibly means its so little fun that it ain't worth doing - i.e. nevis on a Bank Holiday / weekend / summer - Lomond at the weekend, etc.

now that wasn't too hard was it everybody...?

as long as its done responsibly - that's the consensus

the only slight fly in the ointment being that 'responsibility' is not determined by consensus but by personal belief. I'm sure the riders in the video thought they were being responsible and that guided their actions. The rest of you weren't there to be consulted.

we just need to decide what responsible means...I dont think I will be using SFB as my moral compass on this one. 😛

**** me are you lot still engaging Barnes?

From what I can see, it is a complete waste of time to imagine he will take on others' views.

I dont think I will be using SFB as my moral compass on this one

neither were Chris, JC, Badbod et al...

He answered me * swoons*
OK fair point sfb
I agree al but i really do miss him and his contributions

FYI I steer well away from tourist honeypots on bank holidays because I prefer not to have to dodge lots of plebs 🙂

simonfbarnes - Member

as long as its done responsibly - that's the consensus

the only slight fly in the ointment being that 'responsibility' is not determined by consensus but by personal belief

As you keep being told its not personal belief - "responsible" has a legal meaning in general which means to a great extent the consensus defines "reasonable" and in this specific case there is clear guidance.

to be responsible on narrow paths you have to give way to walkers - this is not a matter for personal belief. Its enshrined in the law.
As these guys were not giving way on narrow paths they were not behaving reasonably

it is a complete waste of time to imagine he will take on others' views

funny little gnome just needs a cuddle..

It's surely only a matter of time before the YouTube video is available for full and frank critique? 🙂

[url= http://www.****/news/article-2152659/I-strong-feeling-come--Fury-man-photographed-Everest-traffic-jam-emerges-climber-took-BIKE-mountain.html ]Downhilling at another tourist trap[/url]

to be responsible on narrow paths you have to give way to walkers - this is not a matter for personal belief.[b] Its enshrined in the law.[/b]

As you keep being told its not personal belief - "responsible" has a legal meaning in general which means to a great extent the consensus defines "reasonable"

but I think you've already confirmed that the right of access conveys no substantive benefit (or violating it any penalty) so if people chose instead to go with their personal interpretation it makes no difference ?

Which is, of course, open to interpretation.

and to a certain degree, whether the individual chooses to acknowledge the authority of that law..

just to add fuel to the fire.. 8)

BTW I love "enshrined". I can just picture TJ with incense sticks at his little shrine to the code of responsibility :o)

the right of access conveys no substantive benefit

so if people chose instead to go with their personal interpretation it makes no difference

What about walkers just blocking the path because they ignore the rules or pushing cyclists off bikes when they pass - after all the same enforcement issues. See we are vulnerable if people chose to ignore the rules sfb.

No you won't go to jail SFB - you just prove you are a selfish git.

Most of us do not need the threat of punishment to behave in a reasonable manner - is your sense of morals so deficient that you do?

Most of us do not need the threat of punishment to behave in a reasonable manner

but I think I'm always reasonable!

but if you insist on [b]enshrining[/b] a particular interpretation of reason without any real inducement to conform apart from guilt tripping you may not expect wholehearted compliance. I mean, most of us go on word of mouth. I've been on this planet for 59 years without murdering anyone yet I've never read the statute(s) on murder. Laws are all "party of the first part" and no one has time for that stuff, so someone will say "you can go where you like in Scotland if you're reasonable" and that's all you need to know, as you already understand reasonableness.

It's a bit strong to invoke morality when you're talking about where you ride your bike, I'd keep that for not stealing or sleeping around and such...

but I think I'm always reasonable!

t's a bit strong to invoke morality when you're talking about where you ride your bike

SSSIs are important as they support plants and animals that find it more difficult to survive in the wider countryside. Protecting and managing SSSIs is a shared responsibility, and an investment for the benefit of future generations.

Can you really think of no situation where a moral judgement is required on a bike in the countryside?

Can you really think of no situation where a moral judgement is required on a bike in the countryside?

yes in terms of what you do but not where

SSSIs are important as they support plants and animals that find it more difficult to survive in the wider countryside. Protecting and managing SSSIs is a shared responsibility, and an investment for the benefit of future generations.

but riders have told me of being turned back from SSSIs by people driving landrovers, which I would deem far more disruptive, though one might argue that the rare things are probably well away from the frequented paths anyway...

Not a good advert for mtb riders they were just a bunch fuds.

Not a good advert for mtb riders they were just a bunch fuds

another canard. In what other branch of life is one required to take into consideration what others might think of the category one happens to fall into?

{paxman]should we ride SSSI's then[paxman]

Footy is on - i e I am off now

Happy trails SFB

So SSSI Rangers use Landrovers so you should get to ride your bike there?

Junkyard, we really should give up, look what we're up against:

[img] [/img]

Didn't Singletrack do I ride guide in te cairngorns not so long ago, I thought that was a Area of outstanding natural beauty? Bit hypocritical don't you think, also I always though magazines/papers should take a neutral position instead of having a go?

What's objectionable about that?

Junkyard - Member
I dont think I will be using SFB as my moral compass on this one

.....nor a person who thinks traffic signals and national speed limits are a matter for personal interpretation 😆

Just watched the clip.

WTF were those idiots thinking???!!!!

[i]A [b]white[/b] frame with a [b]gold[/b] stem-cap and [b]green[/b] grips!?![/i]

Jesus wept. It's bloody irresponsible and downright tasteless...

.....nor a person who thinks traffic signals and national speed limits are a matter for personal interpretation

isn't that everybody ?

WTF were those idiots thinking???!!!!

Evening all, I've missed all this, quick summary? I saw a bit of a boring video of folk riding down a path, then someone offered crisps (salt and vinegar please), then the argulympians descended (faster than the stars of aforementioned vid, I might add) and I switched off.

Who's winning?

simonfbarnes - Member
.....nor a person who thinks traffic signals and national speed limits are a matter for personal interpretation

isn't that everybody ?

Well I think you either follow all rules/codes to the letter or take them all as "guidlines" it's a matter for your own philosophy/morality.
I just find it somewhat hypocritical to quote some codes of conduct as :the law: whilst treating others as flexible

well, I have to say that I'm far more disapproving of people drinking and driving after the ride than any infracted rights of way...

well, I have to say that I'm far more disapproving of people drinking and driving after the ride than any infracted rights of way..

I bet you don't object too much when you get discounted travel for you and your bike.

he doesn't own a car so that's all ok.

Duggie Style - Member

There are quite a few people on this thread that seem to be hard of understanding.

Worth quoting.

looks like BMW dash at start of film....

no need to watch further....

decision taken...

Land issues aside, that trail looked insanely crap.

That steep steppy narrow stuff with large penalties for failure is too difficult for me. Thought they rode it very well.

Tomhoward argualympians should be marked ©CaptainFlasheart when in use.

Beer with hose crisps? I have homebrew Wherry if you're interested.

Cheers sandwich, but I'm just polishing off the last of a box of wyld wood cider, be rude to mix drinks. I'll come knocking next time the 'lympics are on 🙂

All seems to have gone quiet now though.

Here we go, its wrong , its right, my view is correct, yours is wrong blah blah blah.
Did they behave sensibly....yes
Were they in control........yes
Did they hammer it down"forcing walkers off the track".......no
Was it a bright idea.......probably not
Did they break any laws........no

Looks like a good run on a quiet day, the sheer amount of other users would put me off straight away, but did they know at the time how busy it would get as they must have started out pretty early.

So before you rush off condemning people for not fitting with your idea's of whats wrong and right, sit back , wind your neck in and have a little think.
God bless you all.

Here we go, its wrong , its right, my view is correct, yours is wrong blah blah blah.
Did they behave sensibly....yes
Were they in control........yes
Did they hammer it down"forcing walkers off the track".......no
Was it a bright idea.......probably not
Did they break any laws........no

So before you rush off condemning people for not fitting with your idea's of whats wrong and right, sit back , wind your neck in* and have a little think.

* Given as advice to someone you you'd like to sit down and shut up, whilst also pointing out that they are wrong.

The vehicle with the mass and the speed and the greater capability of causing an accident is expected to be able to control itself

If we're doing access - [url= http://www.hodology.com/resources/Notes_Materials_Law_Byways.pdf ]some reading[/url] on rights of way and cycling. Mostly from law as it applies to England and Wales. Has this one beaten the aftermath of the bogtrotters ride Stanage thread yet?

ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY pages ??? You can read it, I'm not 🙁

[i]I'm more worried about the "myself and Alex" subtitle, me. [/i]
Why worried? It serves an important purpose - identifies the author as a numpty straight away.

[i]Which is why we all give way to horses, isn't it?[/i]
yes.

[i]Here we go, its wrong , its right, my view is correct, yours is wrong blah blah blah.
Did they behave sensibly....yes
Were they in control........yes
Did they hammer it down"forcing walkers off the track".......no
Was it a bright idea.......probably not
Did they break any laws........no

Looks like a good run on a quiet day, the sheer amount of other users would put me off straight away, but did they know at the time how busy it would get as they must have started out pretty early.

So before you rush off condemning people for not fitting with your idea's of whats wrong and right, sit back , wind your neck in and have a little think.
God bless you all. [/i]
Why carry on after the first line? The rest of your post was precisely that.

It is neither reasonable nor resposible to continue this thread, nothing new is going to be introduced and it is simply becoming a bit of bickering.
We should be spared anymore of this...

evilsea +1 more or less what I was thinking
Rode with one of the guys in the film on sunday never having met him before - seemed like a decent bloke to me
only error they made was under estimating how busy it was going to be
and even then started early to try to avoid the hoards
wish a few more riders were as polite as the guy filming G

Didn't Singletrack do I ride guide in te cairngorns not so long ago, I thought that was a Area of outstanding natural beauty? Bit hypocritical don't you think

simonfbarnes - Member

[i].....nor a person who thinks traffic signals and national speed limits are a matter for personal interpretation
[/i]
isn't that everybody ?

[i].....nor a person who thinks traffic signals and national speed limits are a matter for personal interpretation

isn't that everybody ?[/i]

well, it's not me, for a start. It could be everybody else, but I reckon it's a bit of a sweeping generalisation.

Those queues of climbers on everest are insane

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

that reminds me of something...

[img] [/img]

Did they behave sensibly....yes
Were they in control........yes
Did they hammer it down"forcing walkers off the track".......no
Was it a bright idea.......probably not
Did they break any laws........no

To be honest, I'm with evilsea on this. There were a few slightly dodgy looking passes but when you're passing that number of people, you're almost certain to have a couple of near misses regardless of "rights of way" and the law and possibly not even your fault - it may be that a walker moves one way then back again, I'm sure we've all had incidents like that.

Naive to ride it on a B/H but even so at least all the walkers were on their way up so could see the riders coming down. Some of the comments on the video are a bit daft (eg "if he hadn't of moved I'd have killed him instantly"), even if they are intended to be ironic. Other than that, the whole nearly 400 posts on here seems mostly to be a storm in a teacup, a lot of people getting het up because it's the Bogtrotters.

STW = [b]S[/b]torm in a [b]T[/b]eacup [b]W[/b]orld.

What's new.

a [s]lot[/s] couple of people getting het up because [s]it's the Bogtrotters[/s] they hit big

😆

Personally I think it is highly irresponsible of all these walkers to head up the Ben on a Bank Holiday when they know it is going to be busy. Bloody idiots, didn't they realise there could be bikers coming down the path and if they ascended in numbers then there are all sorts of potential accidents waiting to happen. Should I add the smilie or not?

[img] [/img]

Still, it's nice to have SFB back, whether you like him or not.
I think we need to consider all views in the access debate, even the extreme ones.

Personally I think it is highly irresponsible of all these walkers to head up the Ben on a Bank Holiday when they know it is going to be busy

Climbing the ben on a bank holiday looks about as much fun as root canal surgery 😕

Sauchiehall Street is quieter than that.

STW = the Statler and Waldorf of the MTB world :o)
Ironic considering that I'm older than nearly all of you!

however, I'm not back, I just jumped in when Crazy Legs told me some Bog Trotters were being slagged off 🙂

Anyone care to count the walkers in the video to see how many were almost killed to death or passed..?

Maybe there should be a walker per path metre index ratio including gearing and leverage to show go or no go optimum inconvenience interface sustainability coefficient, obviously subject to certain path declination statistical parameters..

Or something...

*just been reading about mgmt consultants on the Claire Smiff and Paxo thread... slipped into Consultantbollox...

This thread is ridiculous. As is the fact that the vid was put in midweek movies. The biggest mistake those riders made was to video it and upload it to the Internet, where people such as STWers can rip them apart.

I haven't bothered reading the whole thread as I have other, more important things to do. I go out and ride my bike. I want to ride Ben Nevis. It sounds like a challenge, and the scenery looks breathtaking! However, I'm not sure when I would have an opportunity to ride it because I don't have the luxury of time or money to go whenever I feel like it. So maybe it would have to be one weekend or bank holiday. And yeah there might be walkers, but I'd be sensible and courteous, like the riders seemed to be in the majority of the vid. Unless of course, the people on this thread could give me the money I need to go on a quieter day that fits in with their acceptable schedule (but why should you?).

It's a nice day. Go out and get on your bike

i agree with mr barnes whole heartedly

pot kettle & black springs to mind stw towers are you listening

i live in hebden & next time i see you riding trails you know you shouldnt be ill remmember to video it & post it on here -you know who you are i see you often enough riding where you shouldnt be .

friggin double standards

tyred biker =could not agree more 🙂

The biggest mistake those riders made was to video it and upload it to the Internet, where people such as STWers can rip them apart.

no, I think it aptly demonstrates why it's a bad idea to ride the Ben on a BH but that well intentioned riders can still share a trail with throngs of walkers reasonably harmoniously. Also that STW is infested with grumpy gits which is why I abandoned it. The riders seem quite unscathed by the fullsome criticism 🙂

Big Bud, you are misrepresenting our stance. The bog Trotters rode perfectly legally but they chose an inappropriate time to do it. Plus the way they, at times, passed walkers was not, in our opinion, done in a way that is conducive to promoting the shared use of all paths by all trail users, be they walkers, horse riders or cyclists.

For the record, we (Singletrack) support the use of all suitable trails, paths and tracks by all user groups on the basis of respect for the trail and other trail users at all times - That puts our stance in conflict with the legal framework on many occasions but we think the access laws in England are outdated and need to be changed.

We fully accept that this standpoint will not be to everyone's liking but then here we are debating it and allowing all opinions to be aired - this one is ours.

you're almost certain to have a couple of near misses regardless of "rights of way" and the law and possibly not even your fault - it may be that a walker moves one way then back again, I'm sure we've all had incidents like that.

Imagine driving your car and you come across a pedestrian in the road [ ie you have to give way to them] - DRIVER: yes I saw the pedsestrian but I did not stop or give way instead i went to drive round them and they dodged my car by running the way I was going so its their fault really.
Whilst I understand your argument what it requires is for you to ignore the rules of who has to give way. That law is there to make it safer for everyone as we know who has to stop and give way[ if less fun for us on the downhill]
If we all took this attitude we could have walkers blocking our path and just kicking us of our bikes as we pass...sfb thinks its fine for them to decisde what is reasonable as after all the law could not be enforced [ In all honesty I think he wants to ignore it when it favours him and for others to repect it when it favours him]

a lot of people getting het up because it's the Bogtrotters.

What Mark said...everyone like a Brown noser

Problem with the Boggies, as expemplified by SFB is there desire to just do as they please. We need to respect walkers if we wish for them to respect us on the trail and there are more of them than us and they have a greater political voice.
Ther eis little to be gained by annoying them even if the access laws are an anachronism that no one can defend