How long before a l...
 

  You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more

[Closed] How long before a local authority closes a trail centre?

22 Posts
14 Users
0 Reactions
63 Views
Posts: 23107
Full Member
Topic starter
 

If a local authority has withdrawn maintenance for a park based trail centre does it still have a duty of care to people using it? If so, as the trails erode, ruts and holes form, undergrowth encroaches and fences and signage start to deteriorate will they have to close it for insurance purposes? If they barrier it off and people still use it will they be liable in the event of an incident attributed to lack of maintenance?

This is all hypothetical BTW. I’m not thinking of a specific venue.


 
Posted : 29/02/2016 11:53 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

Not a specific one near Bury?


 
Posted : 29/02/2016 11:56 am
Posts: 23107
Full Member
Topic starter
 

This is all hypothetical BTW. I’m not thinking of a specific venue.


 
Posted : 29/02/2016 11:59 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

Sorry...I'm hard of reading.


 
Posted : 29/02/2016 12:03 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

There are/were plenty of old sections around Cannock. I can't recall any that have been closed without an alternative but essentially they get taped off/barriered/signed which is generally enough for most people to get the message. I understand that the fc/la have no liability if you choose to carry on riding.

The pattern of deterioration varies. Some sections stay rideable for quite some time others are quickly overgrown and disappear. The rideable sections usually come to an abrupt end when there's windfall or the fc move in and harvest the area.

Public liability on the maintained trails is paramount. Short cuts unofficial kickers or alternative lines don't tend to last too long and unstable woodwork is quickly repaired


 
Posted : 29/02/2016 12:12 pm
Posts: 17273
Free Member
 

Is this hypothetical or are you thinking of a specific venue? 😉


 
Posted : 29/02/2016 12:17 pm
Posts: 23107
Full Member
Topic starter
 

This is all hypothetical BTW. I’m not thinking of a specific venue.


 
Posted : 29/02/2016 12:20 pm
Posts: 17273
Free Member
 

This is all hypothetical BTW. I’m not thinking of a specific venue.

Aaaah..... You should have said. 😀


 
Posted : 29/02/2016 12:22 pm
Posts: 7884
Free Member
 

There is an old BMX track running along the side of the A57 just as it meets the M67, doesn't look like anyone has done anything to close it off it just look overgrown and abandoned.


 
Posted : 29/02/2016 12:23 pm
Posts: 23107
Full Member
Topic starter
 

Public liability on the maintained trails is paramount. Short cuts unofficial kickers or alternative lines don't tend to last too long and unstable woodwork is quickly repaired

But what if they are not maintained?


 
Posted : 29/02/2016 12:24 pm
Posts: 21016
Full Member
 

If it's no longer funded differently to any other part of the park, then I would assume the local authority would treat it as they would any other part of the park?

If they take the signs down, it's not a bike specific trail centre anymore, just a collection of tracks for anyone to explore.

If they left the signage up I assume they'd have extra responsibilities?


 
Posted : 29/02/2016 12:26 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

This thread made me think of Lee Quarry


 
Posted : 29/02/2016 12:56 pm
Posts: 3378
Full Member
 

No shit. Although I believe I heard from somewhere it was [I]hypothetical[/I]


 
Posted : 29/02/2016 1:57 pm
Posts: 23107
Full Member
Topic starter
 

Not Lee Quarry.


 
Posted : 29/02/2016 1:58 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

If his was hypothetically Crag quarry, there have been MTB lines all over the place for 30 years. I doubt they would just disappear.

The lines would evolve and deviate like they always have for years and years.

I assuem othe rplaces would be the same.

Theorectically, how would a local authority barrier a place off? Besides, if you break your neck when they are maintaining it, what woudl their actual liability be?


 
Posted : 29/02/2016 2:11 pm
Posts: 8527
Free Member
 

Apparently GT is going to shut, cos I sometimes decide to park in town and ride there, instead of subsidising the shed-in-the-hole.


 
Posted : 29/02/2016 2:18 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

You bastard


 
Posted : 29/02/2016 2:19 pm
Posts: 8527
Free Member
 

😆


 
Posted : 29/02/2016 2:24 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

But what if they are not maintained?

Good question

Some of the abandoned sections fall naturally into ruin, some continue to be ridden and some get...developed. Not being involved in trail building I only see the end results. It's properly built but experimental IYKWIM. Features that would never last or be OK'd on the official trails but someone who knows what they're doing is building them anyway. Sadly when the loggers move in that's the end of it

On the maintained trails someone only has to have a prang and things get changed pretty quickly. The original rollers were twice the size they are now but someone got injured and they were quickly filled in. Also the Chainslapper claimed a few air-ambulance-level casualties before it got closed.

The downhill trails are free from much of this policing and public liability I think the skulls on the signs put people off 🙂


 
Posted : 29/02/2016 2:44 pm
Posts: 8392
Full Member
 

I'm told the road towards Mam Tor from Castleton has closed due to a landslip, still saw some bikers on it a few weeks back.


 
Posted : 29/02/2016 4:13 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

At best all they would do is put up some A4 bit of paper nailed to a random tree closing the trail. Would that deter anyone? The lines would still be there. Any trail official or otherwise is use at you own risk.

How can anyone blame anyone else for the state of the trail? By definition I would want it bumpy and difficult etc? We have the family trail for everything else.


 
Posted : 29/02/2016 4:21 pm
Posts: 32265
Full Member
 

Not sure where the occupiers liability laws kick in here - just marking a trail centre as closed and not doing maintenance may not get the owner/occupier off the hook if anyone, even trespassers, get injured.


 
Posted : 29/02/2016 4:37 pm
Posts: 1143
Free Member
 

I'm not sure what the full story was, so excuse me if this is rumor rather than fact. I was told that some of the unofficial trails at QECP had to be destroyed because the local authority could no longer claim ignorance to their existence after an injured rider had to be rescued.


 
Posted : 29/02/2016 4:56 pm

6 DAYS LEFT
We are currently at 95% of our target!