[Closed] For those who ride the Hurtwood land on the Surrey hills...

That'll be £75 for that bit of drafting by the way

you, fella, are a bargain. You want to see how much Mrs Bullheart charges at her firm. 😯

I decided not to renew my membership of the Hurtwood, after seeing the top section of T trails mashed up a few years ago and along with the reservoir dogs receiving the same treatment I thought what a waste of money.
You do all realise that there is logging work scheduled for the BKB side of the forest. Expect that trail to disappear under the logging machines wheels.
I did do some summer evening trail work on Yoghurt pots, but at the end of last summer the emails dried up.

Your contribution to be a Friend of the Hurtwood isn't for the maintenance of mountain bike trails, the money is used for the maintenance of the whole area for every reason - conservation, safety, ecology, car parks, access etc etc.

The scheduled felling on the BKB slope is a bone of contention, admittedly. Surrey Hills AONB are not desperately impressed that funding was applied for and given, only for the felling plan to surface some months later.

Your contribution to be a Friend of the Hurtwood isn't for the maintenance of mountain bike trails, the money is used for the maintenance of the whole area for every reason - conservation, safety, ecology, car parks, access etc etc.

Yes I appreciate that but some of the the earlier posting are implying that they might have some influence regarding the trails.

The current "legacy trails" have been trashed to death over the last few winters as you will be well aware, and its no wonder new stuff has sprung up.

Yes, that's true for sure. I think it is pretty well impossible to get the legacy trails to stand up to [i]everything[/i] winter brings. Some minimising of damage can be done - esp sorting out drainage. When you get down to it the Surrey Hills is just a massive pile of sand, so making that hard-wearing is a challenge. To date we are actually only allowed to do stuff on Yog and BKB anyway, although other trails fall into the category of established "legacy" trials.

It's never going to be possible to have very neat and absolute rules - organising mountain bikers is like herding cats; difficult and ultimately pointless. But some sort of sensible status quo that is acceptable to a high percentage of riders ought to be the aim.

I've said it before, but most of the illegal trail builders I've come across dont bother with forums and therefore won't see all this ranting

Aye. Irritatingly, other people seem convinced that cyclists are all one group - all alike and all talking to each other!

Out of interest, of all those on here who are bemoaning the building of unsanctioned trails, have any of you ever ridden trails that you know are not official? If so, what is your justification for doing so; because they are already there and other people do so?

Surrey Hills AONB are not desperately impressed that funding was applied for and given, only for the felling plan to surface some months later.

That's interesting, could you provide some more details about the fact pattern there, e.g.,

Why applied for funding, and when?;

Who gave the funding, and when?;

Who introduced the felling plan, and when?;

Where does Surrey Hills AONB fit into this; and

Where does the mtbing community fit into this?

I'm speaking there on the basis of second-hand information, so for me to speculate further would only be guessing. So I'll do a little guessing! Forestry is contracted-out, usually to Tilhill, who (already I'm running on a kinda basic understanding of how things work here) will probably have an on-going contract to do thinning of trees and their end of it is linked to the the value of the timber.

Thinning, by the way, is necessary just from a conservation point of view. I guess what is needed in this instance is either an undertaking to work around BKB and not damage it (unlikely, in my opinion) or for an agreement that maybe they drop the trees they need to drop and just leave them where they are (it is the massive trailers that haul the trees away that do all the damage).

If anyone is familiar with Abinger Common (the woods, not the village) then you might have seen just how massive the ruts created by the machinery are... Abinger Common woods is a SSSI...

Stopadoodledo

As a relative newcomer to the area I have no idea if some of the trails I've ridden are sanctioned or not - you just can't tell. Now I've read this thread I suspect one I have been riding which is sort of parallel to BKB is unofficial - so will stop riding it -I'm not sure how you would know that though unless you logged in here and read every thread about Surrey hills

I am hugely respectful of the trailbuilders and the owners and the trust and rangers because the trails are massive fun yet it has a much better vibe than a trail centre

But it is ****ing hard for people new to the area to know which trails are sanctioned and which aren't - and I have joined everything, bought the maps, spoken to riders and the ranger, googles and interwebbed it all etc etc

I guess this applies more to pitch (no signs) than Holmbury (some signs) and Leith (signs) but even then it can be difficult to tell what is sanctioned or not eg I am pretty sure where I start waggledance from is not the official start - but clearly I am not the only one as the section gets hammered

Thanks GP

I don't know anything about SSSIs/environmental law but it sounds like they're liable to remediate Abinger, as in, [i]criminally[/i] liable? I'm probably stating the obvious there. I love Hurtwood and don't want to see the place get covered in more tracks. I wonder whether threatening litigation for what they did in Abinger would concentrate their minds as to whether they should do the same nr BKB.

Seriously though I really don't know anything about the local situation, probably I'm completely misjudging it, and I suspect I'm focussing too much on formal stuff/legalities

Didn't someone say they were going to start some kind of thread encouraging everyone to join Hurtwood Friends, I'd be up for that, where do I sign up.

[url= http://www.friendsofthehurtwood.co.uk/ ]Friends Of Hurtwood[/url]

well, I've joined up...

Well said winterfold. as an occasional visitors to surrey hills, say 6 times a year it is really difficult to know whats sanctioned and whats not. as you poodle around the hills most people will try out any likely looking trails inbetween the undergrowth. How are we to know if this has been there 20 years or 2 weeks.

I'm guessing the creators of these trails are not liekly to hold there hands up or take much notice of an official line hence i think much of this 'policing' is pointless. If hurtwood were to mark which trails were sanctioned ie by marker posts or maps, would we as communty stick to these trails. If one of your favourites was not marked as such would you never ride it again even though we may have been doing so for years and not apparantely causing a problem to anyone.

What i'm trying to say is that although the middle ground of the MTB community may claim to be respectful and law abiding in fact we are probaly all breaking the spirit of the rules if not the actual rules every time we ride up there. but all the while saying its not me gov.

I think this one will run and run for years yet. The hardcore of anoymous trail biulders will continue biuld the rest of us will ride whatever we find on the ground not knowing whats sanctioned or not.

I tried with Abinger Common to get Natural England to come and inspect the work - they won't. So, although the rules for working in a SSSI are very strict, the mechanism for checking is very weak - possibly additionally so, given the status of the landowner.

BKB is not on a SSSI, so the prospet of any kind of official action with regard to damage caused by forestry work is slim to nil. Besides, some conservation, such as thinning, appears messy but is actually necessary in the long-game.

I'm local and can see both sides of this. I certainly don't know what the answer is.

That said, it feels to me that there are too many new trails appearing recently in obvious well-used areas on Pitch and it's starting to spoil the place. If I think that as an mtber then I can understand why local walkers are hacked off.

Problem is, the sanctioned trails inevitably end up riding like a trail centre and some trailbuilders will always want something different or more techy (not that a lot of the new trais are especially interesting).

It does make me laugh that we all agonise about these little ribbons of path running through the trees and then the loggers come along and completely mutilate whole hillsides. Puts it in perspective.

Likewise, there is a new (to me) exit onto the fireroad in the Proper Bo area which comes out very obviously at the fork in the fireroad to the North of the other exits, its clearly tricky and has quite a big drop-off.

I wouldn't attempt it having seen the exit, but you can see how people might start from the top of the hill, not really know which exit is which then end up on something that is really quite difficult and more than they bargained for. Lots of skids and a big mess. There was a rider on it who decided discretion was the better part of valour, who would have taken an earlier easier exit, or the one that goes back up the hill once I'd explained to him what the options were. But he hadn't clocked them, and how was he to know?

On the other hand I found another new one (to me), er somewhere else, possibly in another county, which was thoughtfully constructed, had made good use of some surplus logs lying around and was very well hidden and I had to give myself a severe ticking off for riding it afterwards.

As you say, no easy answer...

(Some of the trails in the Reservoir Dogs area, particularly the faster ones heading East down the hill have had a lot of small logs put across them, I couldnt tell if this was people trying to make the trail more 'fun' or someone trying to put the trail out of use? None of them were big enough that even an old fart like me couldnt manual over them. I'd have thought if the ranger was doing it he would have made them properly unrideable... If we arent suppossed to be riding those, someone let me know and I will reprimand myself again. Ta to whoever's been sorting out the drainage on the section in the rhodadendrons)

I have been away skiing for a few weeks,
which trails are these?

3 pages of talk and not an actual mention of which trails...

probably not a coincidence nick...

your probably right!

I suspect I know which ones though...
does one involve a windmill

I can think of at least one landowner in the Midlands that historicaly hasn't encouraged bikes. Now their attitude is changeing slowly but surely, even talk of something similar in scope and scale to FTD and the Monkey at Cannock. But based on the numbers of riders who are local to Cannock (or even big trail centers like GT) talking about how all the unknown cheeky stuff is better I can't see them going for it.

A trail is a trail.
Someoens land is their land.
If a horse rider built a showjump in your back yard you wouldn't be happy?
If ramblers decided your lawn would make a nice picknic stop* you wouldn't be happy?
So why should MTB'ers be any different?

Why not just charge? How the logistics would work i don't know but don't swinley do something similar? I'd imagine the landowners would be more accommodating to official trail building if they're getting a chunk of cash every year. Sure there'll be people that skip paying and build unofficial trails but £10k a year would probably help.

Secondly i don't see how walkers get annoyed by the unofficial trails, especially those that are on steep sections which are a bit more 'interesting'. I'd imagine the people who like zipping down the fireroads that most people use to go up are more likely to offend.

Gotama in the case I mentioned above the challenging drop-off involves a) Boba Fett flying 6-8 feet through the air and landing on the fireroad in front of you or b) screeching brakes then a middle-aged hardtail rider crashing in a pile on the fireroad in front of you, shortly followed by the bike or c) some combination of the above whichever way, it's not a good look to walkers etc. There are 3 trick exits on this fireroad now in a short run about 100m and it looks a bit of a mess even without bikes flying around.

The Ranger would have to be blind and a complete idiot to not know every inch of the land, its not really that big, and I expect is pretty tolerant of some of the discrete cheeky stuff - its just when people take the piss, ruin the look of the place to the other users, owners and Trust members and make trails that could be dangerous.

nick - I am only talking about Pitch and Holbury in this thread and have never ridden anywhere near a windmill - or even seen a windmill.

However if I was going to piss off a landowner I would much rather do it over there, than on Hurtwood land. He is a cock, but Hurtwood are extremely progressive.

I dont know if the trails being discussed have specific names, but two of them are pretty obvious and reasonably well described here.

I'm in no position to get on a high horse about it and am not going to anyway, it would just be nice if people realised how lucky we are, and if determined to go off piste, be a bit more discrete about it.

My 2p is that around the Hurtwood there are plenty of natural trails and sanctioned trails that can be ridden. I'd rather it was kept to the general tourists riding the official trails and the rest of us can continue the sneaky riding on trails that haven't really been 'built' which is generally tolerated, or few complaints arise about them. The natural stuff is fun.

Anything else should be done by working with sanctioned local trail builder groups, and with permission. Not only to make them official but to build sensible trails as a bunch of kids out with a shovel tend to just make a mess and what they build doesn't cope with wear'n'tear and the weather.

Though I'd rather the place didn't turn into a trail centre.

Given that the Hurtwood is rather unique in having an open access policy, I'd rather we work with them and not piss them off.

Oh and the impact on the landowners includes affecting their business. This isn't just inherited woods for some snooty Lord to go hunting in, these are working logging forests.

And yeah, I think it's worth joining the [url= http://www.friendsofthehurtwood.co.uk/ ]Friends of the Hurtwood[/url], but no it's not funding trail building and you have to remember they are not on the side of MTBers, or on the side of walkers and horse riders either. They work to maintain the estates and balance use between everyone. It's been working pretty well for some time but the problems occur when the local residents (some of whom have a lot of influence) get pissed off. Only thing is you don't get much feedback as a result of joining, but do get the occasional newsletter though haven't had one in a while. They can be useful as they can mention issues raised at meetings, including where locals are getting pissed off about the MTBers.

Final thing is the Friends of the Hurtwood are looking funding cuts thanks to general cutbacks. This might affect what things they focus on and if a lot of time and money is involved with ensuring unofficial trails are not being built where they shouldn't be (or risking them getting sued if anyone breaks their neck), then they might start to restrict access.

Besides Holmbury Hill isn't where it's at. There are much better parts of the Surrey Hills 😉

what do you class as 'natural' trails?

Trails that haven't been built as such - no digging, cutting, building jumps or berms. Just paths or routes that can be ridden. They get 'ridden in' a bit but basically all natural features.

Surely Hurtwood is a good example of how a privately owned woodland can offer value to everyone. And that selling of the FC land doesn't necessarily mean destruction and restricted access, if sensible conditions are put on the sale at least...

most of the best 'natural' trails up there have been dug and shaped and then ridden in, some have been routed through or over interesting features

Most just involve a little bit of clearance and marking lines with logs. Little impact and the walkers even appreciate it.

BUMP

Well the loggers are on the BKB side of Barry now. In fact one of the huge balloon tyre things was parked so close to top bit of Barry that if I leant over you could touch it. I didn't but was quietly pleased when the dog peed on it.

As CheezPleez said it does put the odd cheeky trail in perspective.

They haven't actually done any damage to the trail yet, and may not come further down the hill, but does anyone who has more contact with the powers that be know if they have been asked to take care? I might give the Ranger a call tomorrow to ask. Obviously it's a working wood, thinning needs to happen, but it would be nice if the expensive bit down the bottom wasn't trashed.

freeridenick - I know what you're on about now. That has to be the nicest DH style trail I've seen in Surrey Hills; well-built, using natural features, not going to be seen by anyone else on the hills, let alone cause anyone a problem. It is far less of a problem than some of the legacy sanctioned stuff where they pop out onto the fireroad in a rooty mess/drop IMO.

I wish I had the skill and balls to take it on. I cant actually see any old fart like me coming a cropper on that, as the first corner sends out a pretty clear message, and I got off and just had a walk and a look. Would like to see some people really having a go on it though.

Further BUMP

Just had a quick chat with the Ranger and he is on top of the loggers and has been very clear about keeping off BKB. They will have to cross the trail at a couple of points at the top but he has identified those and is pretty happy the trail will get ridden back in pretty quickly.

There will be no damage to the built bermy section at the bottom. So hurrah for him, he always seems a very reasonable and decent bloke to me.

He, and the riders he is talking to in more detail, also have some plans for the messy rooty rolls/drops on Pitch, particularly the one into Car Park 2 and the ones at the end of the Proper Beau network further up ie those where we are more likely to come into conflict with users of the woods. These plans are of a shallower, more twisty, sustainable, not following the fall-line nature.

(I do think there is scope for a decent sustainable DH run on Pitch that is out of the way so riders on it are 'out of sight out of mind' for fusspots, and so people who are going to skid down it dont get on it - but this is a later conversation to be had with the Ranger)

Also the maintenance/volunteer network has been in a state of flux while it is looking for a new organiser so that is why people have not been hearing much about it.

Well done to whoever was doing it, and good luck and thanks to whoever is taking it over. If you are on the forum I am very happy to help out, and am self-employed so can get up there in the week to do some work when it is not so busy.

Glad you found it 8)

Its not that hard really!

I am old and too much of a roady who keeps his wheels on the ground to take on the jumps for now.

Hopefully I'll reacquire my balls when I've been jedi'd - which is coming soon 😛

jedi will hang em back up for you!

He, and the riders he is talking to in more detail, also have some plans for the messy rooty rolls/drops on Pitch, particularly the one into Car Park 2 and the ones at the end of the Proper Beau network further up ie those where we are more likely to come into conflict with users of the woods. These plans are of a shallower, more twisty, sustainable, not following the fall-line nature

The rooty descent into CP2 is one of the best bits of Pitch. It's much like the old ending to BKB before it was sanitised. Not sure what conflict there is there other than people pop out into the car park, but never seen any harm there.

I'd prefer if Pitch was largely left alone. Keep the tourist trails to Holmbury which is where most people will go and generally where the magazines and books refer to. The locals can stick to Pitch and further jewels beyond.

The Proper Beau fall lines or the Holey trail stuff as I remember them have just become a mess, an obvious eyesore and user conflict, I think those are the reasons why Hurtwood want to change it.

As for T5, part of the trail uses an established walkers path, which also runs along the edge of the Graveyard and then into a busy(at weekends) car park. I like the final descent into the car park and have spent many happy moments getting acquainted with the holly bush on the corner. 😳

"just require a few hardcore riding spots round london. Theres aston hill in the NW. PORC in the very SE"
I might be wrong, but I don't think that isn't (just) want many riders would actually want
While that 'sort' of venue is obviously great, it seems to me, partly down to being a publicised 'centre' and to deliberately withstand larger volumes of users with perhaps a more spread out range of ability/riding 'styles' in terms of braking control, respect for trail conditions, perception of right to ride, expectation to ride at speed/on the ragged edge, bike burlyness etc etc etc .. that wider, harder, smoother, less twisty and generally more generic features appear more often than not
Where what 'occurs naturally' is quite different, a greater diversity of tighter, twistier, steeper, more 'original' and less 'familiar' features with many combinations which are never almost repeated elsewhere/everywhere

"im sure if there was a "proper" (as proper as you can get with 150-200mm altitude gain) downhill spot in this area it would solve alot of these problems"
I agree with you, though I think there would still be many exceptions

The descent into Car Park 2 is fun - but it is a fall line and does get moaned about - so is not ultimately sustainable so I can see his point.

I think the Ranger would rather it (Pitch) were left largely alone - but people are building up there, and it is getting hammered, so bits are starting to look a mess, and so something needs to be done.

"just require a few hardcore riding spots round london. Theres aston hill in the NW. PORC in the very SE"
I might be wrong, but I don't think that isn't (just) want many riders would actually want

I didnt say its what most riders want. It certainly isnt what I want.
Im assuming it is what the riders who keep building masses of woodwork and huge jumps want though.

I was attempting to suggest a solution to eliminate the issue around these riders who tend to be the ones the landowner/public notice the most. Before moving on to other issues.

Although the population pressure is much less in the midlands at cannock chase there is an official downhill/freeride area. Therefore the more extreme riders tend to keep their building to this area and leave the rest of land/trails alone.

This is the first thing that is needed just SW of london something like aston hill/PORC. The great thing about downhill/free ride areas is they dont actually take up much room but can cater for a large number of riders.

Unlike a XC trail.

well there is already. Tilgate, Rogate etc.

"Im assuming it is what the riders who keep building masses of woodwork and huge jumps want though.

I was attempting to suggest a solution to eliminate the issue around these riders who tend to be the ones the landowner/public notice the most"

I know you were, I was perhaps rather pointlessly trying to add another side toward anyone seeing that idea and going with it (on this thread) as an 'only' type solution

Im a strong advocate of illegal trail building because as has been pointed out, without it we would have nothing but bridleways. However recently and for the first time in 2 years i went up to the trail commonly known as ‘proper bo’ (which when we originally built it in 2003 was known as Rad Lane http://www.pinkbike.com/photo/64181/). And i must say the level of erosion is depressing. I feel ashamed that something i originally made has turned into this destructive eyesore. However the irony is that if hurtwood control had’nt burned down the northshore we built up there the trail would be in a significantly better state than it is now partly because the standard of woodwork was high enough to dissuade bad/ xc cyclists, partly because it kept people off the floor and partly because there would still be a dedicated crew of trail builders maintain it who would never have let it get as bad as it has.

As far as im aware this trail is not an officially sanctioned trail ? But the problem is once its been created irrespective of whether the dangerous , outrageous, stunts jumps and berms get destroyed by the authorities it virtually impossible to stop other riders continuing to use it as ‘singletrack’. Theres only so many ways you can block something without destroying what it is your trying to save.
Thus the actions of the authorities in these cases almost always follow a pattern; they attempt to shut down a trail completely by removing anything fun/interesting that may be on it. this alienates the builders who give up and move on to a fresh/hidden spot but it dosnt stop the flow of shit weekend warriors who drag their brakes, ride it in the pissing rain and never even contemplate doing ‘manual labour’. All the while the builders are doing their work elsewhere until that is stopped too and they move on again and so the circle of destruction continues.
it seems to me this thread although somewhat balanced is a witch hunt against who ever it is that is building interesting stuff in the area. Its been framed as the concerned conservationist landowner and the sensible middle aged xc riders against the irresponsible young tear away dh riding trails builders. When in fact the trail builder and the land owner probably have the same interests at heart
1 to limit trail usage
2 to limit erosion
3 to not have people riding in the wet
4 to keep the trails secret and out of slight of other users
5 and most importantly to maintain a thin and sustainable trail with a hard wearing trail surface, most trail builders hate to come back and find skid marks and blown out berms.

The real villain of this situation is the weekend warrior city boy xc cyclist who doesn’t have time/ commitment for trail building / maintenance and yet knowingly rides illegal trails and trails that used to be illegal with a sense of entitlement and superiority whilst simultaneously opposing and condemning the actions of those prepared to work on the trails. What’s worse is that they often do this in the name of liability/ conservation or whatever but generally its because they consciously or sub consciously know they could never ride the more progressive stuff thats being built these days and so they have no hesitation in condemning it.
I don’t have any answers here all i can say is what i will do and that is to continue secretly building in other areas where land mangers have less resources to focus on trail destruction or perhaps amore open minded approach and i will refrain from building northshore ladders as they are too easily seen and destroyed. All the politics is bs and essentially get you nowhere other than producing more bkb style trails which only exacerbate the problem by attracting more numptys.

So many double standards in the post above!

You joined just to post that? You sound like a bit of an elitist moron, move on somewhere else if you feel so strongly, I doubt you'll be missed!

To be fair there's a few sensible points there about trying to persuade people not to be riding in the wet and riding without due consideration to the impact of the sheer weight of riders in the Surrey Hills. And also about the acceptance by many that the trails will exist for them by other people doing the work.
Where i disagree is that we should build trails on other people's land. Especially Hurtwood where they're doing a huge amount to remain open and engaged with the biking community. Sadly when I helped out on the trail building days, it was the same usual suspects...

haighd2, well said mate 😀

haighd2 - good points well made. Rad lane is screwed 🙁

The main problem with North Shore stuff (and I loved the ewok village HaighD2 is talking about / built) is that it's a nightmare for landowners.

The original got chainsawed because of liability -little jimmy falls off and mummy sues the landowner. As soon as the ranger found it, he was obliged to put it beyond use, regardless of whether he liked it or not. From a conversation I had with the then ranger, I gather he was rather impressed by it, by the way.

It's now got to the point where little Jimmy's mum gets kicked out of court, but the insurance companies are still willing to have a pop to recoup the money they have to pay out to people who claim unemployment insurance while busted up. There's good reason for this: fighting these cases is expensive, so most landowner's insurers would rather cough up than face a long and expensive court case which they'll be unlikely to receive costs for even if they win. From the point of view of the self insurers, like the Forestry Commission, which is a government org, the money is fairly irrelevant - payouts come from the taxpayer - but the amount of ranger time spent gathering evidence for a half day in court is prohibitive.

So yes, HaighD2, you're kind right there -the landowner wants nice thing trails that keep their shape. Hence the new ending to BKB, which was professionally built. That's the standard they look for for high-traffic trails, because that's the stuff that holds up against numpty riding. Basically, a trail centre trail.

We can't get away from the fact that there are a lot more people on bikes, and a lot more novices than ever before. We can get all territorial and exclude DFLs, but that wouldn't be terribly fair - it's not our land, after all. What we can do, and what a bunch of us actually did, was try and make known trails tougher, to cope with the extra traffic that was already there.

We can't limit the spread of information - specifically about trails in the Surrey Hills. The secret is already out, and there's no way of making the hills anonymous again. I sure as hell don't want a trail centre on my doorstep - and for what it's worth, various professional trail builders have told the landowners around here that they shouldn't do this either. The Surrey Hills is unique.

Perhaps rather than bitching about north shore / londoners / trail centres / xc numpties, how about coming up with some suggestions of how to reach a compromise between landowners and bikers? They're pretty damn receptive these days.

Some people seem to feel that their version of mountain biking is the one true path, sounds almost religious and a bit sad to be honest. Numpty, shit weekend warriors, weekend warrior city boy xc cyclist??? Lovely use of inclusive language. I've been on trail maintenance, learned a lot and repair where I can to keep it sustainable. I've been riding there for 20 years and although certain people and things do make me smile inwardly I like the fact that all kinds of people are out on bikes having fun, we all had to learn once and some of us still are. You sound a bit like you'd take your ball and go home if you could...

Well said, Jools. 🙂

Everyone is making some fair points

I think it will need the builders of the more tech and difficult stuff to come out and a way of keeping less advanced riders (like me) off the more difficult stuff to be found for it to be a workable compromise.

Of course less capable riders can always get off and have a look before riding a 'new' trail but that seems like uncommon common sense...

It's sad that the guy who built Proper Beau is now ashamed of it 🙁 I slagged off the multiple ugly endings to it earlier in the thread but there is an element of getting off and having a look before deciding to have a go at it that seems to be missing. It would be horrible for Hurtwood if it had to have loads of signs and warnings up because of legal or h&s concerns.

Are we entirely sure that everyone thinks a trail centre is a bad idea? I dont want one there, but I have heard (bloke in pub style admittedly) that some people do think it is a good idea...

Wow, sounds like a bit of a mess...

If I were still in London, these would be closest to my local trails, so kinda sad to hear of all the issues.

One of the things we've been doing here in Aus lately (I do a bit of work for IMBA Aus and am involved in plenty of local stuff) is give the land managers an example they can relate to easily to understand the situation given 99% are not MTBers.

We use skate parks. Every suburb (here anyway...) seems to have a skate park of some greater or lesser extent. This is your constructed, designed trail network. It has small features for beginners - green trails - mid-size and large (blue and black) for those who've progressed further. This gives everyone a place to go legally and find something for them, even if not the be all and end all.

It won't stop certain people using natural features - footpaths for MTB, the town hall steps for Skate - or making their own (building new trails for MTB, using pallets for a sketchy transfer for skate ). However, although there are still the odd few issues with skating, it's not heaps of skaters getting chased by security as it used to be. The same can be said for MTB if the facilities are provided

The same will theoretically happen with MTB, if the facilities are provided. The other point to emphasis with this was that skaters weren't/aren't trying to actively destroy the handrails on the stairs that they're grinding, they just want that type of experience, however foreign it may be to the non-skaters. MTB is again comparable; some people want ladders and big drops - if we actually provide some of this - and not all "sanitised" trail centre trails - then folks won't have to build it themselves (usually where its not wanted!) and cause as much drama to the land owner, becuase it'll be on their terms to a degree.

The other thing here seems to also be what you guys are asking for and accepting. You need to go bigger. Just because they are more reasonable than other land managers shouldn't mean you shouldn't be prepared to push for what is wanted/needed, but instead just settle for the crumbs they do throw you. Sure take those to keep going, but don't forget to keep asking for more.

If your kid says " Daddy, I want a Pony!" not many are lucky enough to get an "ok, sure" response. However, the nagging continues and eventually you and the kid settle on a dog. You don't have the ££££s wasted on a pony an all the stabling and mucking out at 5am, but the kid does have a pet and some of the ownership and responsibility that goes with it. A compromise, sure, but one that is workable for both parties.

Bear in mind Ramblers etc have used these type of tactics for years to get to where they are now - and they are a lot better off than us with regards to access and trails.

So. I aint good with long paragraphs etc.

What is happening? People are building stuff there?

Why? Can't they just enjoy the sweet flowing singletrack for what it is?

Why spoil it for others?

haighd2, this is for you.

Short version: you're a [s]massive pillock[/s] EDIT: that was perhaps not so well thought out; 'deluded moron' is probably a more accurate phrase.

Long version: at the start of your post I thought "ah, now here's a writer worth reading - someone who's actually doing some diggin' and putting in some love!"

Then a few little phrases crept out, as has been mentioned, along the lines of:

bad/ xc cyclists ... other riders ... shit weekend warriors ... weekend warrior city boy xc cyclist

As an aside, I say hi to everyone I pass on the hills (ooh, get me, what an unusual thing to do): walkers, horseriders, families and especially other bikers. Elderly hikers are cautious, parents bring their children close when bikers ride by, but almost everyone smiles when greeted - that acknoledgement that we're all out on the hills for fresh air, lovely views and, well, fun. Can you guess which group of hill-users is most likely to ignore a hail from someone on a rigid bike with no kneepads and who looks as if he's perhaps not taking riding around in the mud quite seriously enough...? The answer may have been alluded to above.

I may have veered from the subject slightly; I actually wanted to make a point that anyone who thinks trails like [i]Barry Knows Best[/i] are a bad thing, because they attract more riders to the hills, cannot possibly have the best interests of the wider mountain biking society at heart.

haighd2, I appreciate your trail building craft: it's likely that sanctioned trails would never have come to pass without years of cheeky trails before them, but your attitude to other riders will only win you support from the likes of Dango & Ewan up there. Everyone else (or "numpties" as we're apparently known) will see you for what you are and conclude that we don't want you on our 'side' as you'll never actually give a damn about anyone other than your particular clique.

As for the 'trail centre' idea: is it actually all that bad? From the ones I've been to it seems what you get is jolly well-built trails that resist erosion and, more importantly, are graded so that everyone knows what sort of level to expect. Mums and dads with their kids pootle along on the green and blue trails, numpty weekend warriors cruise around on the red trails (whilst contemplating the blacks) and the "real" riders (I'm talking about you, haighd2, baby) have orange areas to hone their skills.
Is that really so bad?

the best interests of the wider mountain biking society

What is this society of which you speak ?
All I see is loads of DFLs 'rocking up' on a Sunday morning, skanking the trails for a couple of hours then beggaring off back home.

it's likely that sanctioned trails would never have come to pass without years of cheeky trails before them

More than 'likely' there would be little or no mtb 'scene' without the efforts of the cheeky builders and the 'numpties' would still be spinning their bling round Richmond Park of a Sunday

What is this society of which you speak ?

Anyone who rides a bike, grouped together in a 'society' to distinguish them from those people who have [i]explicitly stated[/i] that they couldn't care less if anyone else has places to ride, i.e., haighd2.

Not sure what this 'scene' is of which you speak, Hilldodger, but I am sure that there would be plenty of people on bicycles cycling up and down the Surrey Hills' bridleways with or without trails. Don't misunderstand me: I love bermy trails, but there are other elements to mountain biking which I've no doubt we all enjoy.

Not sure what this 'scene' is of which you speak

The 'scene' is here, aka talking about something rather than just doing it 😉

but I am sure that there would be plenty of people on bicycles cycling up and down the Surrey Hills' bridleways with or without trails

I agree totally, but there would certainly [i]not[/i] be carparks full of high end cars carrying high end bikes ridden by high end twerps yahooing and high fiving everytime they managed to not fall off.

“futon river crossing - So many double standards in the post above!”
“njee20 - You joined just to post that? You sound like a bit of an elitist moron, move on somewhere else if you feel so strongly, I doubt you'll be missed!”

Ah name calling when you don’t agree, stay classy sandiego. I joined this forum because it thought you guys where having a relatively sensible debate about trail access in my local area. If you’re a fan of childish name calling I think its you that should move on.

Elitist, yes that’s pretty much my point we should be elitist and keep the good stuff secret. Yes I have double standards and that’s because unlike others here im not proposing some grand narrative or overriding moral code of conduct about what land owners/ riders should be doing. Im just saying it how I see it and that means inevitably there are contradictions. Its not fair that ppl ride stuff that I build without helping and its not fair that landowners have stuff built illegally on their land but short of razor wire fence and armed guards these things will go on and both parties will just have to accept that. Im not saying hurtwood should do this or that, im just saying what im going to do. Im not even saying they were wrong to knock down radlane or freebourne’s ‘holey trail’. I understand the reasons they did it but it hasn’t solved the problem of erosion or more illegal trail building has it. Also id point out hiding behind liability issues is a cowards way out its an excuse that landowners use to add weight o their argument. All liability issues can be avoided if there is sufficient rider commitment and a willing landowner. Look at wisely. Anyway id love to know the stats on successful land owner payouts to riders of illegal trails (in the uk)? Maybe the trainee lawyer can help here? Having said that it is the owners prerogative to do as they please on their own land if they want rid of a trail then so be it. I accept that. What im saying is that a) that trail is never going to be fully gone and b) all that will happen is builders go elsewhere. The problem dosnt go away.

Someone said earlier ‘what gives trail builders the right to build on private land?’ ‘how would they like it if I built something int heir garden?’. The answer is if I had a garden/ could afford my own house and you built mtb jumps/trails in it id be stoked. Also its not a fair comparison between a domestic garden and a large ish estate . But in all seriousness the real answer to these questions is trails builders are not in the right but what land owners need to understand is not everyone respects the rules. some people have watched fight club one too many times. Some people just go and take what they want and ultimately you cant stop them. This isn’t right or just but it is a fact.

Joolsburgerb -
I respect all types of mtb riding (even trials) this isnt really an interdiscipline thing I recognize that there are a lot of xc riders who are skilled and have the right attitude to trails. Having said that in my experience people who build/maintain trails are usually more freeride/dh types although there are exceptions. What im really saying is what type of riding your doing be it xc dh or whatever that’s not really the issue. the issue is people who don’t put anything back into the scene in terms of graft. Anyone who has a dig ride ratio worse than 40:60 needs to accept that they are part of the problem.

winterfold - I agree signs are ugly and over used already. Trail centres are like nuclear power stations, they are often a good idea but none wants one in their back yard.

langy - I hear what your saying and at the moment it seem like the people representing riders in the surrey are treating mtb like a homogenous single entity who all have the same wants. Here, unlike in the issue of trail maintenance and trail respect, riding disciple is an issue and getting the authorities to understand the distinctions between sub groups and their various wants is the way forward. Possibly. Im not fussed im just going to keep hoping my latest trails don’t get too popular.

The point I really want to drive home is rights or wrongs are irrelevant. People are going to continue building steep trails / jumps/ drops and theres nothing that can be done to stop this. Landowners will prob continue knocking things down when its too ugly/ dangerous or erosive. People will continue raping trails with no consideration for the environment / builders. In 30 years when our Chinese over lords turn the whole area into high rise they aren’t going to give two hoots about any of this.

Hmmm...

So the amount of time you can afford to spend riding and the car you drive is an indication of your level of seriousness and riding ability.

Envy is such an ugly thing. Personally high fives and smiles all round make me smile. But then I'm not a ****.

I will add I am all for trail building and completely understand your desire to push limits and ride stuff that you find fun and a challenge the problem is simply that in the Surrey Hills care needs to be taken and the landowners wishes respected, surely the big stuff on Leith is enough to keep you happy? That's a good 20 foot step down over there just for starters...

dig:ride ratio of 40:60.

What a crock - think how many trails there'd be if everyone did that!

Claiming some sort of ownership over "your" trail? It is much better to ride a trail that already exists than make another one for fear of upsetting the digger!

As far as I can see you built a trail, and people have ridden it, and now it's looking a bit sorry. And?

Its only 'your trail' if the landowner agrees and lets you build a specific trail and even then they'd probably frown if you claimed 'ownership'
😆

I'm a Trust member and I'm against a trail centre because it would mean (almost certainly) someone who didn't build the trails coming and making money of the back of it and acting like they own the place. It would have to be a pretty community minded proposal for me to think it would be an improvement on the status quo - ie one with hardly any profit in.

It's a bit of a messy compromise the way it is at the moment, but it's organic and real, and we're Brits - we're great at messy compromises so we can muddle through.

hora - the Ranger seems to think there is new stuff being built (or maybe just becoming more known about) but wasn't particularly specific as you can imagine. His main concern is sorting out the obvious eyesores and fall lines to stop erosion and people crashing onto fire roads or car parks. He seems to know cheeky building is unstoppable and just wishes it happened on Leith and Winterfold so it was someone else's problem 🙂

mr murdoch was the incident you speak off at redlands car park on coldharbour lane last sunday between 12 and 3 if so it could well have been us. In our defence if you ride off before a reply can be uttered then you only have yourself to blame.

Again I would reiterate what ive said above about name calling lets not get personal.

I don’t see myself as a white night I don’t dig for recognition And on the whole I dont get involved in trail access debates with landowners. I dig for myself so I have something to enjoy. if other people want to ride it then fine I cant stop them anyway so there’s no point getting bent out of shape.

What I would say though is your right I dont really give a damn about other people, i am selfish, if they want something to ride they should provide it for themselves. I dont think im an amazing rider I know there are a lot better in this area when I say we should be elitist I mean in terms of building commitment rather than riding ability. Lets keep things local and low key. However riding ability should come into it a bit difficult features should be used to warn off riders who have no business on that trail. if I found a line I was too pussy to ride I would leave it alone note it down and come back and ride it when I had grown a pair I wouldn’t build a pussy out line round it or skid up and down the lip or run about on it. Or cut the landing away or fill the gap in. why does everything have to be to the level of the lowest common denominator? People who do this kind of thing are causing yet more trails to be built.

no 40 60 is good think about how well maintained the traisl would be if everyone did that

So the amount of time you can afford to spend riding and the car you drive is an indication of your level of seriousness and riding ability.

As far as I can see you built a trail, and people have ridden it, and now it's looking a bit sorry. And?

maybe i should go back and fix it? but im not inclined to as everything we put into it was torn down/ flattened. when we left it i assumed it would become over grown and was urprised to find it was being used as single track.

joolsburger - Member
But then I'm not a *

And so once again we descend from discussion to insults, are you sure you're not a *

haighd2

couple of points - there is quite a lot of willingness among riders (just from this forum there are plenty, mostly locals) to put some effort into maintaining the existing/sanctioned network - but that has not been translated into meaningful effort because of a lack of organisation. Apparently this is being sorted. In the meantime if something obviously needs doing eg draining people could just get off their bikes and do something about it - the Ranger would much rather we did this than rode round it and made the trail bigger or create a new line. Ultimately some 'sanitisation' of the existing network would probably be to the advantage of the cheeky builders as if those trails are more sustainable people are less likely to look elsewhere and come across the 'secret' stuff.

Just from the point of view of someone who lives in the area (ish) I much prefer the more natural look and feel of the freeride trails er to the West of the area to the more obviously built stuff with concrete etc on Leith. I can see why those trail pixies come out.

Lets keep things local and low key.

Building cheeky trails on land where riders are allowed access by the landowner/trust arent exactly the low key way of doing things. Local is a very relative term in that part of the southeast.

POV from someone who grew up just the other side of the A3

Haighhd2 does raise some very valid points and I tend to agree with him.

RIDING IN THE RAIN AND WINTER IS KILLING OUR TRAILS.

Without him and the like the Surrey Hills would not be the riding honeypot that it is now - he is almost his own worst enemy for all that hard work put in to Rad Lane, Freebore etc.

Please continue building the steep stuff 😉

There are some brilliant trail builders about here - Tatto dave, Simon from Nirvana, Haighhd2, Roger - I salute you all

Those weekend warriors you talk about don't have time to find the good stuff....let them trash Rad Lane and Barrys

Loving the dig:ride ratio! PMSL.

Ignoring the silliness.

There is a lot of challenging stuff over on Leith on the east face. I'm sure some of the stuff I've ridden over there is a bit cheeky but it's also low traffic so I hardly see anyone when I'm there perhaps for some that may be a better option than Pitch which is obviously contentious right now.

This issue really boils down to popularity and the easily found sanctioned stuff is used by lots of people and is obviously in need of repair in places. However it's also a working wood and essentially a big tree farm so the talk of erosion and natural versus built doesn't resonate with me look at what the logging does eyesore wise. In that regard I'm all for more work to create and maintain trails in the ilk of Barrys etc which despite being disregarded by the hard core are still bloody good trails and fun to ride at speed.

I am given to understand that the real issue is one of liability for injury, not only when Jeff from accounts over cooks it on something beyond his skill but more so from people riding the bridleways and more accessible public areas in an irresponsible way. Sadly there is no easy cure for that other than having a word with people when you see it. For example the footpath at the bottom of BKB which is clearly marked as no bikes yet 90% of people seem to ride anyway and **** everyone else..

Maybe it would be better if bikes had to pay a nominal daily or annual fee for trail upkeep a la Swinley. Then subsequently trails were more clearly way marked and those with issues of erosion were managed and that something could be worked out with the landowners that allowed for a loonies area of DH and freeridey stuff or allowed for more expert lines to be created in parallel to the existing runs. This would require a lot of good communication beween us and the landowners and that seems a bit out of kilter with this underground ideal that some people have. I think it would be better if cheeky trails didn't have to be rebuilt all the time and the only way to get people on side and not destroying your good work is to work with them otherwise it will always be this way.

wow easy on the compliments there nick, i only have a 40:60 ratio because i dig dirt jumps the majority of the time and ive only prob built one trail every two years up on the hills.

There is a lot of challenging stuff over on Leith on the east face

Sssssshhhhhhh!

Anyone who has a dig ride ratio worse than 40:60 needs to accept that they are part of the problem.

This statement has made me properly lol on an otherwise dull lunch break. Thanks.

Yes sorry that was dim...

Nah, plenty of room for everyone, people need to relax, we're all doing it for the same reason.

Maybe the issue here is just respect for the trails - the goal being to ride a trail with as little impact as possible (skids are for kids, etc).

So no matter whether the trail was built or not, people should not ride it if they are going to damage it - which covers riding all trails when it is too muddy for them, or ridding built trails when your skill level isn't enough to manage the trail without damaging it (too much).

The name-calling of these less-skilled riders attempting stuff they shouldn't is not too dissimilair to to cursing of skiers and showboarders coming down some sweet black run and scrapping all the snow from it because they can't take the fall line.

Any maybe mtbers should be forced to take out some form of insurance to ride so they landowner is not faced with a potential liability problem. After all you have to take specific insurance to go off-piste skiing, or be faced with a potentially big bill. If I fall off on a black it is my problem, not the ski resorts problem for pisting a run that was too steep.

i was with you till you started talking about insurance. riders insurance is going to be prohibitively expensive?
i dont seee whats funny about 60:40 ride:dig some people who build dirt jumps are prob operating at 20:80.

Haighd2, Dango and Ewan couldnt agree more with you. As one of the two builders of the 'T' series, XP, the 'original' BKB line and numerous other trails in the area, its depressing seeing the trails in such a poor state. We would regularly go up and spend many hours fixing trails, removing deliberate trail debris, re-routing straight lined corners! prior to going out for a ride only to go back during the week and to fix it all again. Why some riders want to straight line through twisty singletrack is beyond me.

All the trails we have built in the past have been pure singletrack with very few obstacles and once the trail was finished we would quite often let other riders know where they were for ALL to enjoy. Although we were the builders of many of the 'cheeky' trails, looking at the current situation up at Holmbury/Pitch I am against any new trails being built and time should be spent maintaining what already there.

Dandylineandmurdoch, I realy feel for you, it must of been so upsetting not getting a response to your cheery 'hello' you realy do sound like a pompus nob.