[Closed] DIY trails damaging land and unsafe

That's one of those things that comes back to Rule 1.

Riding man-made trails, okay.
Riding natural trails, okay.
[i](Since this is Scotland I'll leave out the 'riding cheeky footpath trails, okay-ish/not-okay-ish')[/i]
Digging your own trails across someone else's land without permission, not okay.

I'd disagree with the[i] "sounds like they want to keep us on purpose built trails"[/i] - they want people to stop digging bits out of their estate, and I'd agree with that. You can ride natural trails without digging stuff up.

Link not working..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-42236259

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-42236259 ]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-42236259[/url]

Fixed link.

Story seems a wee bit odd, it says "It said among places where footpaths had been damaged by mountain bikers was Sutherland Estate, near Golspie.
The estate has since laid out miles of mountain bike trails at a cost of £600,000.". That'd make it ancient history they're talking about, pre-Golspie trailcentre.

Wild trails definitely can be a problem of course. But equally they can be a great resource- the tweed valley's gone from strength to strength in recent years almost entirely due to wild trails (and the new official trails we've built have come largely off the back of that, too)

Its about people digging their own trails without permission. Not on at all. We have right to roam. that cannot be taken away.

trail digging in most cases IMO is vandalism and bang out of order

Yes, we should know our place, really....

I'll go along with that Pyro..unless of course it is with the permission of the landowner.

I don’t get this “digging trails”. I’ve been riding off-road for 30 years and never done or felt the need to. There’s so much to ride anyway. Any if I want something a bit crazier (not that West Yorks and the Peaks isn’t crazy) then I’m not far from a trail centre.

But that isn’t the cool way nowadays is it? No cares for anyone else, not even for other riders in the future who might suffer from their activities.

Yes, we should know our place, really....

trail digging in most cases IMO is vandalism and bang out of order

By that logic there would be nothing outside the official 7 stanes trails in the Tweed valley (and no Dunkeld etc)

Pyro, myself and TJ have discussed this before, just a knowing nod his way....

Point is, it's not black and white, I dig in a local wood and on a moor, both of which are not 'natural' in any way whatsoever.

BoardinBob - Member

By that logic there would be nothing outside the official 7 stanes trails in the Tweed valley

TBH without prehistoric glentress and innerleithen maybe there'd have been no 7 stanes.

There's basically 3 big considerations- contention (ie conflict with others), damage (ie do you leave a permanent negative impact) and risk (ie does the landowner face a potential negative impact from hazards). And these mostly come down to where you build and how you build. Good builders tend to understand the boundaries pretty well.

TJ, I'm pretty sure you've ridden an unofficial trail i built, one time on a pentlands ride... And you've almost certainly ridden trails that have been unofficially maintained or modified by me, because pretty much everyone who rides in the pentlands has. Equally, I've destroyed stuff other people built because it was plain stupid (jumps in poet's glen ffs!)

Hence I put " in most cases" sure plantation forestry is a mess anyway. Moorland? depends on the habitat

By that logic there would be nothing outside the official 7 stanes trails in the Tweed valley (and no Dunkeld etc)

Yup - fine by me. No digging without the landowners permission would seem to fit with "don't be a dick"

TJ, I'm pretty sure you've ridden an unofficial trail i built, one time on a pentlands ride... And you've almost certainly ridden trails that have been unofficially maintained or modified by me, because pretty much everyone who rides in the pentlands has

Oh I maintain trails a bit as well. NO issue with that or with making them bike friendly. Remember I tried really hard with the pentlands trail maintenance stuff Just a huge issue with digging trails without permission. Which one did you build?

Ah, fair enough Nobeer. Thought it was safer to ask rather than jump in with both feet firmly in mouth.

I'd agree it's a grey area, but in my mind at least it's not [i]that[/i] grey. Yes, you have to have somewhere to start from, but the OP's post (at least the way I read it) seemed very 'us & them', and I think digging and development only works if you're working [i]with[/i] the landowners.

Up in the Lakes, we had issues in Setmurthy forest with unofficial trails being dug which were great fun (having ridden but shamefully never dug on them), but did come under 'dangerous to other users' in places - a road gap drop over a fairly well-used footpath for example. Once the diggers actually talked to the FC and got a framework to work to, safety guidelines etc, things became more official and it kept everyone happy. Okay, it's had a bit of a flare-up recently as the original diggers with the FC relationship and contacts have all semi-retired, and newer people have started going outside the framework because contact's been lost a bit. But ultimately it's their land, and if they don't want you digging bits of it up I'd say that's fair enough.

Im being slightly hypocritical here too ..
I thing nothing of riding moorland & mountain footpaths in England..so just as guilty ?
I've done my share of trailbuilding over the years ..but have never created one away from an official trail centre .
The trails at Golfie & Inners are made with a blind eye from the F.C...they won't think twice about closing them when it's time for harvesting ...

Quite a lot of wee bits around harlaw (if it feels like it's been there for a long time, but you're not sure if it's been there for a long time, probably me)

Given what some landowners in the Cairngorm do by way of creating vehicle tracks, I struggle to sympathise I'm afraid.

"access taker" what is that?
7 Stands happened due to a number of things as well as a farming disaster (foot and mouth), it wasn't just Glentress but it contributed.
I don't get the vandalism that now seems rife in this sport. A lot is down to lack of ability, other cases thinking they can do what they like and a disregard for land ownership.
I'm all for building on sanctioned space and building to the upper limits of permission but I don't get the need to just turn up and try to build something that is largely inappropriate.
The traffic in a number of bike routes has also increased significantly over the years so some 'damage' could be down to the trail just not handling the volume.
A lot of contributing factors in some cases.

It is an interesting area. One of the great challenges is that in the Tweed Valley, trails are popping up so frequently that there are now more wild trails than sustainably built and maintained. I've ridden a fair number of them and there are definite issues in terms of erosion, unsafe exit points, disturbance of habitat, construction in areas prone to tree fall, paths built beneath hung up trees etc. A further complication comes when riders continue to ride trails in restricted areas during harvesting. Signs are ignored on the basis of having done so before and nothing bad happened. This isn't a guarantee of future safety and ignores just how dangerous tree felling operations are.

The National Access Forum have instigated a review of legal precedent in this area while Police Scotland have started taking notice too with regards to criminal damage. The challenge for land owners comes in terms of discharging their responsibilities for ensuring safe access to their land. In Moray last year, a young rider was killed on a wild trail which exited onto a minor road resulting in him being hit by a car. So who does responsibility lie with here? The builder? The land owner? Who should be responsible for monitoring and inspecting the trails to ensure they are safe? Who should pay for this? I don't know the answer to these but these are the issues that are coming increasingly to the fore.

Wild build is very much on the radar of land owners and is only going to come more into the spotlight.

Thoughts?

Sanny

[url= https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/dec/29/deluge-farmers-flood-grouse-moor-drain-land ]Best leave the digging on moorland to the responsible landowners then.... [/url]

No digging without the landowners permission

Plenty of stuff gets built in the valley and beyond without the landowners permission

My opinion that is wrong. Its just my opinion and a variety of degrees of wrong depending on the habitat.

Forestry operations would do themselves a big favour by putting up appropriate signage, preferably giving some indication of when they estimate work would be completed (and updating this in the event of delays), than removing said signs when they are out of the area.
This does sometimes happen but I can also think of signs that have been in place for years. Which ones are currently relevant?
'ah, can't hear anything, let's just take a look'.
That is not to say that people are blameless in ignoring restrictions on access of course.

Tj, what is your view on the 'curated' trails you rode on the quantocks a few years ago? 😉

Del - to me they just looked and felt like wear paths from usage. NO issues with that. Its the digging of jumps and berms I don't like. I've no issue with maintaining or grooming paths with a mind to bike usage. Indeed I tried really hard to set up in the pentlands doing just that

Rule 1.

Riding man-made trails, okay.
Riding natural trails, okay.
(Since this is Scotland I'll leave out the 'riding cheeky footpath trails, okay-ish/not-okay-ish')
Digging your own trails across someone else's land without permission, not okay

Whos rule is rule 1?

We did this fairly recently. IIRC TJ, you were against building new trails across "wild" land but did agree that doing so inside commercial forestry was probably acceptable as (a) it's unattractive, (b) nobody else goes there (c) the land has basically been trashed already. I reckon that's a fairly good compromise position, yeah?

Whos rule is rule 1?

The Rule 1 I alluded to, and as TJ quoted earlier, is "Don't be a dick".

It is, or at least should be, universal.

The dicks are out on this one 🙁

I don’t get this “digging trails”. I’ve been riding off-road for 30 years and never done or felt the need to.

This is me 100%. Trail centres aside, or ground that you have permission to dig on. Just ride whats in front of you FFS.

The TVTA has been established in the tweed valley to help drive adoption and 'formalisation' of wild trails, that is, ensure they are built and maintained and negotiate for more building to occur legitimately. It will need all parties to get on board and help with dog days, funds etc but also legitimises the ability to deal with FC and landowners constructively. It's a really positive move, done with solid intentions by people that care. I would say that but having been through this in NZ I've seen what you can do by getting organised and working constructively.

Not every landowner wants to take on a potential multi million pound liability of peoples shit version of a-line.

Normally liability in the uk rests with the landowner under the occupiers liability act. That’s what the no blame no claim lawyers go for usually and people like the fc are an easy target for them as they are visible and the assumption is that they have loads of cash and will settle out of court for a healthy sum. This is why the fc have to be tighter on dealing with dodgy stuff built on their estate. Fc self insure so there is no cash for payouts. It comes from fc core budget and ,earns something else doesn’t get done.

Interestingly in Northern Ireland there was recently a case where the lawyers identified and went after the builder of a trail/ feature under the construction design and maintenance regs which assumes those building something are competent enough to design, build and maintain something to a standard that it wouldn’t cause harm to those using it. I’m not sure where the went but it was an interesting development in claims relating to injuries or loss where someone has built something on your land.

I’ll try to find out where this ended up. It had potential to impact wild trail builders if they were uninsured and could be identified.

other cases thinking they can do what they like and a disregard for land ownership.

Approx half of Scotland is owned by 500 odd people, mostly non Scots.
Disregard for 'ownership' is percectly healthy imo.

Digging trails is inconsequential really in comparison to the amount of windfarm, grouse moor, and mini hydro roads going in recently.

So who does responsibility lie with here? The builder? The land owner?

Oh I dunno, maybe the rider? I know that view is from some other utopian world where people take responsibility for their own actions rather than blaming everyone else in the hope of getting a payout and absolving themselves of any responsibility.

you're assuming the riders are the ones suing/taking action. what if a rider has sickness/critcal illness cover, a mortgage, and a family to feed, and now can't work? they put in a claim, the insurance company look for someone to offset their expenditure.

you're assuming the riders are the ones suing/taking action

No I'm not.

Of course an ambulance chasing lawer isn't going to go after the injured party. They want someone else (with money) to blame.

The point still stands though that responsibility should rest with the rider IMHO, certainly for unofficial ungraded trails. There is a general trend for people not wanting to take responsibility for their own actions / decisions. If I get injured riding a off piste trail blind that is way above my pay grade that's not the land owners fault or the builders fault.

There is obviously a responsibility with the owners/builders on formal sanctioned waymarked graded trails to ensure that the trail features are commensurate with the grade. If they are then it's rider's responsibility to ride within their own limits.

Just to be 100% clear... the OP referred to an article about Scotland. The Land Reform Act (and subsequent court cases) ensure that the landowners/tennants are not held responsible for every bit of misadventure occurring on their property.

The LRA encourages all land users to "be responsible". "

In the area I live most official riding spots would not exist with illegal digging at some point in time.

Interesting issue, surprised people think it's OK to ignore access regs and dig up other people's land without permission.

Digging trails is inconsequential really in comparison to the amount of windfarm, grouse moor, and mini hydro roads going in recently.

Not true, windfarms and hydro will have an environmental impact assessment carried out over the entire project area, including detailed ecological survey of the entire site. MTBers building trails are unregulated and aren't likely to be worried about ripping up ground nesting bird habitat, rare plants, "disappearing" a few trees, etc, etc, etc. Grouse moors, I'm not sure many cheeky mtb trails are built on grouse moors, I think you'd have some angry people in range rovers after you if you did that.

Forestry operations would do themselves a big favour by putting up appropriate signage

Assuming you're being sarcastic, but incase you aren't, the FC go to huge lengths in the tweed valley to close off and sign even unofficial trails, with online notifications too. Loads of people just knock down the fences and barge through anyway, there's been a few incidents at inners in the last year or two with mtbers getting inside the danger zone around harvesters after ignoring signage.

Of course an ambulance chasing lawer isn't going to go after the injured party. They want someone else (with money) to blame.

The lawyer in this case is going to be working for the injured party in all likelihood unless the claim has got particularly contentious.

The Insurance point above is valid. Many self-employed or contractor riders will have sports insurance now to cover the possibility of not being able to work after injuring themselves riding. These insurers don’t just magically pay out, they look for someone to pay up for their loss too.

If a Trail is built on a landowners property without permission, it’s obviously unfair as a double standard to sue the landowner for the injury. If we think little enough of the property to do whatever we want with it, why should we expect the landowner then to foot the bill? If injury claims for riders are going to proceed, it really should be builders that are targeted from a moral point of view. Obviously this is hard, and as above the principle of occupancy gives an easy justification to sue the landowner, which is why they sometimes remove trails if they become aware of them. Admittedly, riders should take some responsibility for their own crashes, but being sued by your own insurance if you claimed on it would be an insane position. Possibly there’s a wider conversation to be had about the entire concept of insuring yourself against injury while taking risks.

All comes back down to money in some respects, but it doesn’t hurt to talk rather than just assuming you can take something.

Grouse moors, I'm not sure many cheeky mtb trails are built on grouse moors, I think you'd have some angry people in range rovers after you if you did that.

Based on my own past experience around North Yorkshire, even straying from the hardpack on a Grouse Moor is likely to be spotted by someone with binoculars and result in ‘angry people in a landrover’ waiting for you or coming to get you. Not that they ever did anything untoward other than warning of prosecution on repeat and taking pictures, but from one conversation, such contacts are recorded with a view to repeat ‘offenders’.

surprised people think it's OK to ignore access regs and dig up other people's land without permission.

I understand that you may disagree with them, but can you really be surprised? It's a big part of MTB for riders now, and it's not going to change any time soon.

there's been a few incidents at inners in the last year or two with mtbers getting inside the danger zone around harvesters after ignoring signage.

Consequently i don't go near where they are felling.......

I understand that you may disagree with them, but can you really be surprised? It's a big part of MTB for riders for the [b]last 20years+ [/b]and it's not going to change any time soon.

FTFY

I understand that you may disagree with them, but can you really be surprised? It's a big part of MTB for riders now, and it's not going to change any time soon.

Its a big part for a vocal minority of riders

Nah. Most just do it quietly and without fuss.

Yeah of course it's a minority. It'd be a right mess if everyone was at it.

FTFY

You'd not agree that digging trails has got way more popular and cooler the last few years?

It has, yes. It would be interesting if anyone has detailed demographic studies on this though especially given the general influx of people to mountain biking without a long history in the outdoors and the general monetisation that has been possible as a result.

Not a criticism per se, but when multiple trends occur in a relatively small population in a similar period there may well be a link - although obviously digging has been part of the scene for a very long time.

I'll post this here but feel free to stick it in the article Mods:

With the recent reports on unsanctioned mountain bike trail building making headlines it is clear to see the challenges we have in our sport between sanctioned trails (trail centres etc.) and unsanctioned wild trails.

The Tweed Valley Trail Association (Scottish Charitable Incorporated Organisation (SC047179)) has been formed to facilitate, co-ordinate and aid in the management of the wild trail network. The TVTAs purpose is simple - adopt wild trails to ensure they are built and maintained to required standards, co-ordinate and fund volunteer groups to maintain & build trails through working co-operatively with land owners such as the Forestry Commission, councils and private landowners. Having a co-ordinated voice empowered to bring together the fantastic trail builders and trail building groups means we can legitimise the wild trail network and ultimately help make more great trails in the Tweed Valley. Minimising conflict in shared use areas between walkers, cyclists, horse owners and land owners is a key focus and we are promoting shared use zones similar to successful schemes in NZ, Canada and Europe.

The TVTA board meets monthly and is about to launch its Website with opportunities to support through donations, request support for trail building equipment, undertake training and get general advice. Firstly we aim to adopt our first wild trail network in the near future.

Confict such as that reported is unhelpful for all parties concerned and while we don't expect miracles we feel that being active and engaging formally will give trail building a voice and allow the network to thrive, expand and increase the riding opportunities for all.

Posted on behalf of the TVTA Board.

The lawyer in this case is going to be working for the injured party in all likelihood unless the claim has got particularly contentious.

.........

Admittedly, riders should take some responsibility for their own crashes, but being sued by your own insurance if you claimed on it would be an insane position. Possibly there’s a wider conversation to be had about the entire concept of insuring yourself against injury while taking risks.

I totally get who would be chasing who to try and recover any money paid out. My point is the ultimate responsibility [i]should[/i] stop with the rider.

What if the rider injured themselves on a trail they had built, what if it was even on their own land? What if the rider injured themselves riding off a natural (not built feature), say a cliff for example? Where does the blame culture stop?

I guess as long as people have insurance or feel the need for compensation in the event of an injury there will always be someone looking to shift the financial burden.

You'd not agree that digging trails has got way more popular and cooler the last few years?

Edit: can't comment on Scotland, As I don't know the seen and I don't know the history of areas like the tweed valley. My comment relates to the SE of England.

We've been building on a piece of FC land local to me (Scotland), building new trails after the existing one's were destroyed by clearfelling.
FC are quite happy with this so long as we follow their guidelines, e.g no built drops, no woodwork features, no built jumps etc. Using natural features is fine including drops, but we must put chicken lines in.
Also slow riders before coming on to footpaths etc.
They've been up and checked our trails and they seem pretty happy, said our last trail was extreme though 8) .
They now want to meet us and formalise things a bit more. They're even willing to put up fences to slow riders where they meet footpaths etc.
Future looks good 😀 .
They even want us to help replant the area in the new year.

Best of luck with that...every chance it starts out very positively but soon becomes a millstone to slow progress. Hopefully not, but plenty examples of it even now.
A difficult situation for the FC (who manage the land for the people - Forestry Enterprise is the commercial arm to make money) as whatever is built they need to be involved with somehow as they then become responsible for it all and if they don't have the resources then it becomes a very difficult position to maintain.

The comments up the page about signage- what's missing isn't signage, it's understanding. Riders do quite a lot of antisocial things and maybe I'm a sap but I think it's largely because they don't know they're doing anything wrong. I doubt anyone enters an FC worksite out of malice, they do it because they don't know the impact it has. Likewise riding on closed/unfinished trails, or corner cutting, or riding too fast around horses, it mostly just comes down to either not knowing better, or not thinking. Sometimes it comes down to thinking you know better, which usually means you don't understand the problem you're ignoring.

So I do think the FC could do more with signage and liaison. A board explaining why to not enter this site, along with the consequences- like "1, it's dangerous for you, 2 it'll delay the work and that means your trail won't reopen on time, 3 it pisses the contractors off and if the contractors are pissed off they're less likely to protect the trail".

Similarly, with the surfaced trails we piss and moan about erosion and corner cutting but a lot of people don't know why it's bad.

And I love the "We've closed this wild trail in particular, wish we didn't have to but here's why" signs they've done at kiroughtree, that's gold standard imo.

bedmaker - Member

Approx half of Scotland is owned by 500 odd people, mostly non Scots.
Disregard for 'ownership' is percectly healthy imo.

The poor had no lawyers, but now they have mattocks 😉

The poor had no lawyers, but now they have mattocks

McLeod mibbe more appropriate....

responsibility should rest with the rider IMHO, certainly for unofficial ungraded trails

Volenti non fit injuria is all good in theory

But what about the bloke that rode along the trail on Friday, then rode along it on Sunday and went down like a sack of **** because someone had dug a gap jump round a blind corner in the intervening 48 hours?

A difficult situation for the FC (who manage the land for the people - Forestry Enterprise is the commercial arm to make money) as whatever is built they need to be involved with somehow as they then become responsible for it all and if they don't have the resources then it becomes a very difficult position to maintain.

I wonder what will happen in 2019 in Scotland when it looks like it all splits up and absorbed by scottish government. Not many media outlets seem to have picked up that the FC will only remain in England from 2019 https://www.gov.uk/government/news/bright-future-for-forestry-commission-in-england

exactly ninfan.

some cases (that have been fought and won by the landowner) have been based on "I was just riding along through your woods on a bridleway on my downhill rig and I all of a sudden ended up taking a wrong turn, hitting a gap jump and now I can't work and still need an income"

Thankfully although the law is an ass, it does exhibit common sense if you've taken reasonable care so having decent checks and procedures in place means that claims for you companies can't take the P&*S.

I think we (the mtb community) are our own worst enemy when it comes to access.
We seem to be quite tribal as a sport with a large proportion (if I'm being very grumpy - the new golf-set), who are happy batting round a commodified, sanitised and approved slice of countryside. The rest of us seem to be a relatively anarchic bunch that'd rather ride and talk crap than anything else. The few who make trails would rather just get on with it than discuss it in working committees and focus groups.

This means that we don't engage with forestry commission and land-owners on their terms - that is, as a large, organised group - in the way that horse riders and ramblers do and so we miss out.

I am personally a believer in the role of an IMBA organisation with a large unionised membership. Having invested time in that once before to great failure, I'm happy to bob along with unregulated trail-pixiing until someone gets it working.

I've never in all my years biking pixie built stiff ever seen a gap straight after a blind corner, mainly as most of us enjoy a run in and out of such stuff, and line of sight.

I don't ride for morality, I ride for fun, and the way I see it is that I can either bemoan my lack of local fun or I can do something about it, in a wood that no one ever goes, or a wet desert of a moor that is equally lacking in ambulance chasers.

YMMV, I'm cool with that.

Del - Member
you're assuming the riders are the ones suing/taking action. what if a rider has sickness/critcal illness cover, a mortgage, and a family to feed, and now can't work? they put in a claim, the insurance company look for someone to offset their expenditure.

Not accurate. Life and disability insurance will only look as to whether there has been accurate disclosure. Long term insurance will not 'recover' from a third party in the same way as some general insurance will.

But what about the bloke that rode along the trail on Friday, then rode along it on Sunday and went down like a sack of **** because someone had dug a gap jump round a blind corner in the intervening 48 hours?

Reckless riding? What if there was a baby robin around that blind corner? 😉

I ride a lot of unsanctioned pixie built off piste trails and I'm always conscious of the fact that they can change and new features appear, even if that is a natural occurrence such as a downed tree for instance.