[Closed] I'm a bird-murdering, sheep-worrying, landscape wrecker.

The ex employee in question spotted the relevance of the list "suspect illegal mtb'ers" as his brothers name was on it.
Just cause things are questionable under data protection does not mean that "respect bodies" do not get up stuff they should not like the Police. They may consider that it's the right thing to do.

Oops! Thick person in action. Double post.

piedi di formaggio - its another one of Glorious Leader Blairs gifts to the nation. Under his uber-draconian 'anti-terrorism' laws (that must have had the North Koreans looking on enviously), pretty much any government agency, or quango, (the National Trust being a typically suitable example of what 'anti-terrorism was meant to cover - suicide bombing squirrels perhaps?) can gain access to pretty much any information they like, on the flimsiest of pretexts, if in fact they have to give any reason at all.

See Bikebouy, I'm spreading blame around 😀

[img] [/img]

It's anti terror in it? Could venture that would be a good reason for stopping folk biking. "It's to stop sheep terrorism". Perhaps the known unknown is that an Orange Alpine 160 is a weapon of mass sheep distruction.

Yeah, but in that picture he's saying 'yeah, that's fine. You can ride your bike up there'. Obviously, he follows that up with 'release the hounds'

Here's what the DVLA say

https://www.gov.uk/request-information-from-dvla

You can request details of a vehicle’s registered keeper and certain other information from DVLA if you have ‘reasonable cause’.
Why you might make a request

‘Reasonable cause’ can include:

finding out who was responsible for an accident
tracing the owner of an abandoned vehicle
tracing the owner of a vehicle illegally parked on private land
issuing parking tickets
tracing people responsible for driving off without paying for goods and services
tracing vehicle owners suspected of insurance fraud

What information you can request

You can ask for:

details of a vehicle’s registered keeper
information about previous keepers for a vehicle now registered in your name
information the DVLA holds about you

Private car parking management companies can only request information from the DVLA if they’re members of the British Parking Association or the Independent Parking Committee."

 

Unless there is a by-law in place, expressly prohibiting it, it is not "illegal" to ride on a footpath.
I'd be surprised if the NT were so ill-informed about access law as to not realise the issue with the wording of that sign.

Just sent them a tweet. Will report back if they bite. I agree about staying out of Bucky Woods though.

Strangely the bike riders prefer to stick to the trails and paths rather than charging across the heathland randomly and hence aren't seen as a threat to ground nesting birds.

I'm a bird-murdering, sheep-worrying, landscape wrecker.

Shouldn't you have included "Greggs stalking" as well?

Haven't read the whole thread but i would say the sign is not officially endorsed by the national trust as its impossible to define a Bridleway through signage alone, and remember an OS Map is no representation of a right of way, or an accurate way of following what is actually on the ground.

Unless there is a by-law in place, expressly prohibiting it, it is not "illegal" to ride on a footpath.
I'd be surprised if the NT were so ill-informed about access law as to not realise the issue with the wording of that sign.

Technically, cycling on the entirety of the NT estate other than bridleway said is a breach of byelaws, on a number of other urban fringe commons it would be a breach of S193 law of property act.

Regardless it's all bullocks because byelaws are rarely if ever enforced, so two fingers wo the whole thing and crack on.

I wonder if that gate has permission to be there?

Tell you what mind 'we maintain 10km of this bridleway for your use' is an interesting admission of liability, given that legally they don't [i]have[/i] to maintain for cyclists... If I fell off and hurt my leg on a rock or pothole I would likely be phoning claims direct sharpish 🙂

I agree about staying out of Bucky Woods though.

So, rather than bleat about the rights and wrongs of the signage on a forum, what are we all actually doing to get the access situation changed, locally and nationally?

Actively involved in local access forums? Engage in dialogue with landowners? Work with rights of way officers to get status reviewed?
Hound local councillors and MPs to get things changed? Support any of the national groups or campaigns?

A few years ago, a group of us went for a ride in an area of ssi. A few got some letters home telling them they were seen riding bikes in that area. They must have got their address through their reg number. Strangely not all of us got letters and we were parked next to each other on a public road

The ex employee in question spotted the relevance of the list "suspect illegal mtb'ers" as his brothers name was on it.
Just cause things are questionable under data protection does not mean that "respect bodies" do not get up stuff they should not like the Police. They may consider that it's the right thing to do.

The best course of action, if he could be bothered, would be for the brother to demand sight of anything and everything they held on him (under the terms of the DPA), and if there was anything of that nature, make a formal complaint to the ICO. IMO they'd be on very, very shaky ground trying to justify holding that sort of information. That bodies do such things, doesn't mean they will be able to justify it, they've probably just never been held to account for it before.

So, rather than bleat about the rights and wrongs of the signage on a forum, what are we all actually doing to get the access situation changed, locally and nationally?

Actively involved in local access forums? Engage in dialogue with landowners? Work with rights of way officers to get status reviewed?
Hound local councillors and MPs to get things changed? Support any of the national groups or campaigns?

errrr. I just ride cheeky and be damned.

A few got some letters home telling them they were seen riding bikes in that area

Letters from who?

errrr. I just ride cheeky and be damned.

I try to ride responsibly and politely. Agree about Bucky Woods though - think that should come off our radar.

To try and appease them you could try getting off the bike and pushing up the paths. Oh hang on a minute.... 😀

Letters from who?

From WHOM, cheesy, from WHOM!

Nature England or something like that.

If mountain bikes caused sheep to miscarry, farmers would never put their sheep in fields with bridleways through them at lambing time, but they do!

I've ridden loads of local bridleways where there are sheep at lambing time. I've also seen the erosion caused by 100s of walkers tramping along them when the ground's wet.

I love the way mtbers bury thier heads in the sand, riding soft peaty trails in the wet, without a doubt causes more erosion than walkers, wheels form a rut, which holds water, if it points downhill it flows forming a stream, thus causing excessive erosion, i have seen evidence of this in numerous places, where bikes are ridden often, the issue is numbers and riding responsibly when it is very soft, do you know anyone that will stay off the moors in wet conditions?

wheels form a rut, which holds water, if it points downhill it flows forming a stream

Any peer review publication to back up your science that wheels form a rut that forms a stream?

I stay off the moors in very wet conditions as it does lots of [ visual mainly] damage and its really not fun to ride through mile after mile of bog.

Frankly, any damage to the ground by mountain bikers is a drop in the ocean compared with what cars and road building have done to the landscape.

wheels form a rut

Feet do too.

I don't need faux science, i can just use my own eyes, my local trails change all the time due to this action, not to mention, locking up the back end when braking, i have no agenda, but i see the damage caused by bikes and it is far more rapid than walkers over a short time frame.

i have no agenda, but i see the damage caused by bikes and it is far more rapid than walkers over a short time frame.

Under what circumstances? How many bikes, how many walkers, how much time? Comparable conditions?

Is the problem caused by locking wheels up rather than simply riding?

I am not going to argue the point, i don't care, i ride responsibly, the evidence is clear to see.

Water causes a lot of erosion. Seen it with my own beady eyes.

you are a fool.

and at that point you have lost my support!

I don't need faux science, i can just use my own eyes

No debating with someone who does not need facts

Who are you calling a fool? Water causes loads of erosion.

Sweet baby Jesus the flat earth society, i'm out.

"flat world"?

I'm back in.

I support the notion of a flat world. If I stand upright all I see is a flat horizon..

8)

For Stoner*

*I had spotted my mistake, but really couldn't be arsed to change it. knew it would trigger someone's grammar reflex on here 😉

[quote=cchris2lou ]A few years ago, a group of us went for a ride in an area of ssi. A few got some letters home telling them they were seen riding bikes in that area. They must have got their address through their reg number. Strangely not all of us got letters and we were parked next to each other on a public road

Which would certainly prompt an inquiry from me about what data they hold on em and where they got it from.

A bit earlier somebody was suggesting making some similar signs up for walkers. Given that the sign is not factually incorrect (apart from possibly the "illegal" bit, though it seems there may be a byelaw), I'd be tempted instead by an alternative sign which is not factually incorrect:

By doing so you can seriously disturb uptight commoners, cause global warming and result in thermonuclear armageddon

do you know anyone that will stay off the moors in wet conditions?

just search on here for Cut Gate. Any number of threads see people being warned off after rain. Plenty of us, even those who sometimes ride FPs, are selective about where we go and when.

I agree on some points with fergal, some trails are ridden clumsily and do become damaged due to mtbs, however lots are damaged through walking. Don't start me on litter....

the world is a big place and there is room for every one. I'd just like to point out that as a relatively new user of the great outdoors we should try to avoid antagonizing the old guard as it just makes it harder to get change accepted.

Oh and everyone should stop being dicks

[quote=duncancallum ]I'd just like to point out that as a relatively new user of the great outdoors we should try to avoid antagonizing the old guard

Yeah, because cyclists have only been riding off road a little bit longer than most of the grouches have been rambling (the original off-road cycling club is 60 this year).

I think it's quite plausible that a bike cause more damage than a pair of feet in some conditions. It is also quite plausible that a pair of feet cause more damage than a pair of wheels in some other conditions. I don't think there is any obvious threshold of vulnerability that justifies banning bikes and allowing pedestrians in any particular situation, especially as the numbers of either type of user can vary massively depending on the location.

we should try to avoid antagonizing the old guard

Someone trying to deter the kinder trespass

A thought experiment:

One standard rambler walks for one mile on a path and causes an amount of erosion "E"
But a fat rambler has heavier steps so causes 2 erosions; 2E
An enthusiastic rambler does two laps of the same course so also causes 2E
A rambler with walking poles causes a bit more than 1E
A rambler who is enjoying the countryside but drags along his two kids (who aren't really appreciating the walk); 3E
A bike rider goes on the same path and causes nE (Where 0 < n < ?)

If bikes are banned then I'm up for banning fat people, people who walk a long way, people with poles and anyone who isn't having a whale of a time.

just search on here for Cut Gate. Any number of threads see people being warned off after rain.

I see they don't mention horses? They do all of the above far more than mtb's. I'm near the ashdown forest, where cycling is specifically banned on most bridleways by bylaw.

I agree about staying out of ~~~~~ Woods though

I'd be inclined to ask if there are genuinely no dogs on leads/no dogs in nesting season etc signs.

It's just as illegal to have a picnic -

The thing is BnD, we're pretty sensible. We stay off the tops, out of the woods, and on the hardpack when the conditions aren't ideal, and we know we'd be churning it up. We're not idiots! That why I really object to the tone of that sign

I agree, most people are sensible, we are blessed with plenty of local all weather natural trails so people don't need to go bog trotting

So, rather than bleat about the rights and wrongs of the signage on a forum, what are we all actually doing to get the access situation changed, locally and nationally?

Actively involved in local access forums? Engage in dialogue with landowners? Work with rights of way officers to get status reviewed?
Hound local councillors and MPs to get things changed? Support any of the national groups or campaigns?

going to be devastatingly reasonable to lots people to try and get the signs down, expanded permissive access, grant funding to tackle erosion and alternative routes when the range is open

after I have stopped posting on here 😉

All I can say is that it's a good job Binners hasn't seem Michael Wife Lane recently......

binners - Member
piedi di formaggio - its another one of Glorious Leader Blairs gifts to the nation. Under his uber-draconian 'anti-terrorism' laws (that must have had the North Koreans looking on enviously), pretty much any government agency, or quango, (the National Trust being a typically suitable example of what 'anti-terrorism was meant to cover - suicide bombing squirrels perhaps?) can gain access to pretty much any information they like, on the flimsiest of pretexts, if in fact they have to give any reason at all.

Surely the sign should read "sheep cause localised soil erosion which can lead to flooding".

I heard that the NT favours favours over-grazed/ denuded hills on purely aesthetic grounds.

Trees soak up a huge amount of water.

The EU should be encouraging hill farmers to reforest the hills. Likewise the planners should be encouraging housing to be built on the hillsides, freeing up the flatter areas adjacent to rivers for agriculture.

Something to think about when the next deluge arrives.

Singling out cyclists is nonsense!
New Forest resident here and we get similar here.
The actual science says basically the slower you are the more your likely you are to disturb ground nesting birds. WCA has in the past quoted an actual scientific study which has a list with a decreasing scale showing their potential to cause issues with ground nesting birds etc.

Its something like:
Walker with dog off lead
Walker dog on lead
Walker
Horse rider
Cyclists

Don't quote me on the list exactly, but the general gist was cycling was far from the worst and singling cyclists out in that way is nonsense.

Also here there are routes that just don't join up to anything. Yep we ride cheeky stuff, Tbh it's hard to get anywhere without doing it. I don't feel I do any more damage than any other type of user in the forest. Tbh far less than some but cyclists are endlessly vilified in the forest, on or off road. Its nonsense bigotry from a vocal but unfortunately influential few.

You lot down there have [i]way[/i] too many laws man.... 8)

Another New Forest resident here and yes their is a lot of cycle hating but isn't that everywhere really?

I just basically ride wherever I want and have done for 15 years. I get a bit of abuse from walkers, (even on the parts I am allowed to ride on and designated as cycle routes). I get jumped on by dogs.

Just ride on and ignore them is my approach.

Righty Ho. I did a bit of investigating on this last night ....

[img] [/img]

As Google threw up not a single reference to the mysterious group behind the signs - the Holcombe Moor Commoners Association - I had to deploy serious investigative techniques. So in the interests of thorough research.... I went to the pub. The sacrifices I make in the interests of exposing the truth, eh? A quick chat with the regulars in my local revealed that the Holcombe Moor Commoners Association is actually 3 farmers.

Despite the land being owned by the NT, 3 local farms are given rights to graze their sheep there, as if it was Common Land - hence the title. The general consensus amongst everyone who knew them was that....

a) The signs will almost certainly have been put there by [s]3 arsey farmers who think they own the place[/s] the Holcombe Moor Commoners Association, without the knowledge or the involvement of the NT. Despite them only having grazing rights, there seems to be some confusion in their 3 heads about who actually owns the place.

b) As a result of this, trying to engage in any kind of constructive communication with them will be about as fruitful as trying to engage in any kind of constructive communication with a dry stone wall, and might possibly result in being shot, and your body dumped in a shallow grave up on the moors.

So, as that appears to be the situation, the signs will be suitably ignored, and I'll carry on doing what I've always done.... riding the footpaths on the moors with suitable consideration to the conditions, wildlife and people encounter.

Hey ho! 😀

All I can say is that it's a good job Binners hasn't seem Michael Wife Lane recently......

I have. And I'm not happy about that either! Though thats a minor issue really.

I would still look to notify the NT as the general public will see that, believe it to be gospel and then further their dislike of mountainbikers

Funny you should mention the New Forest - a recent FOI regards prosecutions under the byelaws revealed no record of any at all taking place

Draw your own conclusions as to what to do...

PS it's a bridleway so it's obviously been [s]designed to withstand bikes in all weather, unlike footpaths.[/s] randomly designated as such due to various random and arbitrary reasons, none of which include suitability for any given form of transport

I don't need faux science, i can just use my own eyes,

Binners, If I were you I'd still ask the NT if this was done with their approval.

Nice one Binners, the sign needs to go for all sorts of reasons or people reading it will otherwise take it as read then the myth becomes reality...

I love the way mtbers bury their heads in the sand

Funny you should mention the New Forest - a recent FOI regards prosecutions under the byelaws revealed no record of any at all taking place

Not surprised. To be prosecuted you would need to be caught and who exactly is going to catch anybody?

I have literally come across 2 wardens in 15 years so unless a rambler is going to try a citizens arrest (of a byelaw?) then pretty safe.

I know laws are laws but cycling in the slightly wrong place (as decided by some local ruling) is not one of the biggest ones to worry about.

All I can say is that it's a good job Binners hasn't seem Michael Wife Lane recently......
I have. And I'm not happy about that either! Though thats a minor issue really.

i've not ridden Michael Wife Lane for many years...whats happened there?

Good work Binners - you deserve a pint for that!

The commoners are probably part of these people - [url= http://www.foundationforcommonland.org.uk/stories/holcombe-moor-common-lancashire ]Foundation for Common Land[/url].

Reading their site makes me think that they are serving a good purpose - however the likelihood is that their sign is a ill informed. Its unlikely to be NT supported although the logo does of course add tremendous weight to their intention.

For me the biggest problem would be that walkers reading the sign will now be alerted to the 'facts' and will hassle us more. I think a stealth removal of the signs would be a better option!

Quite interested to read about the illegal raves etc especially given that the Bedrock Festival took place the other week in the quarry round the other side at the top of Crowthorn. Given the use of farmers fields for parking etc then i would imagine that it was with their blessing - financially anyway!

Binners, any response from Twitter?

Perhaps we should all start tweeting them about it to provoke a response?

For me the biggest problem would be that walkers reading the sign will now be alerted to the 'facts' and will hassle us more. I think a stealth removal of the signs would be a better option!

I think a factually accurate one in the same style would be much better

The signs will almost certainly have been put there by 3 arsey farmers who think they own the place the Holcombe Moor Commoners Association, without the knowledge or the involvement of the NT. Despite them only having grazing rights, there seems to be some confusion in their 3 heads about who actually owns the place.

Total Fail there! 🙄
No mention of
a) "land owning Tory voting tosspots"
b) "Hoi-ti-toi-ti, laaadi-da's"
c) "White Evoque owning Soft Southerners coming up here, taking our houses for their 2nd home Gin Palaces/Grouse shooting lodges"
d) "BBC executives and newsreaders and crayon wigglers and digital media folks, bringing their poncy Rocket Salad and Hummus and Sun dried Tomatoes"

Needs more Grrrr and Angst and less punctuation.

HTH's 😉

i've not ridden Michael Wife Lane for many years...whats happened there?

They've built a big fence right across the bottom of it, so you can no longer get a clean run down. Its not much of a problem as it is right near the ford/bridge, so you just have to chuck your bike over the gate before you get to the bottom. We've normally stopped by that point to pull Wittonweavers out of a ditch, or to try and bodge a smashed rear mech 😉 Its fair to say it doesn't like him, and he doesn't like it! 😀

It was Harry who tweeted them. I'll see if I can get any contacts in the local NT to have a quiet word with. I don't think theres any point in getting all huffy and indignant about it. Just point it out to them that their logos being used in this way

Not reading all that - but, what they are saying is : it's illegal to ride footpaths. Ok, we all know that.. but maybe, just maybe, they are trying to appeal to the nature loving, animal caring, countryside-friendly attributes of MTBers by saying - these are the perfectly reasonable and caring purpose of these rules... ❓

just search on here for Cut Gate. Any number of threads see people being warned off after rain.

Is that because we all want to ride responsibly?! I just avoid Cut Gate in boggy conditions because it's no fun. PS it's a bridleway so it's obviously been designed to withstand bikes in all weather, unlike footpaths.

You may not care about the erosion but many of the posters on the Cut Gate threads give trail damage as a reason to avoid in bad weather. A lot of bridleways are not "designed" for anything (unless DCC have been at them with a JCB and a truck full of gravel).

Cut gate, it's obviously been designed to withstand bikes in all weather

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

I think you're confusing it with a trail centre

it's illegal to ride footpaths.

Only in the same sense that its 'illegal' to throw a ball for your dog while walking along a public footpath...

Those pictures of Cut Gate show you what you want to see.

Is that a result of bikes erosion or bike traversing eroded ground?
Would that stream look any different if bikes had never traversed it?
Based on current usage, will Cut Gate look like a Soviet industrial apocalyptic nightmare in, ooo, say 3 weeks if MTBers keep riding it or will it not change much for the next 30 years?

No reporting without context...

Also, what Mr binners said about the land scape: A lot of what I see round M62/Peak District is tired, buggered, post industrial spoil that has about as much "natural unspoiltness" as kraft cheese squares.

Not saying it's not lovely, mind, and it deserves care but this seems more about rule "enforcement" than having common sense for the environment.

[i]Only in the same sense that its 'illegal' to throw a ball for your dog while walking along a public footpath...[/i]

It doesn't say that on here, so that's irrelevant to the discussion:

[img] [/img]<

BaronVonP7 - Those pictures of Cut Gate show you what you want to see...

What I want to see is a lovely ribbon of singletrack, more foot and bike traffic in inappropriate conditions isn't going to make that happen. There are no rules, its a self imposed / advisory voluntary ban when its far from its best

DezB - It doesn't say that on here, so that's irrelevant to the discussion

It was Harry who tweeted them.

It was. I've had no response. Feel free to have a pop at them yourselves.

t doesn't say that on here,

Maybe it should?

after all, NT Byelaws state dogs must be under proper control and effectually restrained from causing damage to property including plants and from injuring, annoying or disturbing any person, bird or animal.

Book 'em Danno!

Near me on Greenham Common there are signs warning about ground nesting birds being disturbed during nesting season... by dogs. They have sections of the common which are marked as being off limits to dogs where they shouldn't be allowed to roam, and dog friendly sections where they can be let off the lead.

Nothing about bikes. Strangely the bike riders prefer to stick to the trails and paths rather than charging across the heathland randomly and hence aren't seen as a threat to ground nesting birds.

That sign looks like a "I don't like bikes so any random reason will do" rather than actually caring about the birds, as they'd be banning dogs and walkers too.

I'm from Thatcham and ride Greenham and the best bit about the red markered areas for the stay away during breeding of small birds season, is they haven't taught the cattle or horses to be able to read the signs too, as they go trotting off........

 

It's the fact that the sign is aimed only at MTBers that annoys me. As already said above, other users cause the same problems.

Firstly the sign is not in compliance with the [url= https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/307152/draft-tsrgd-schedules.pdf ]Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (Page 35, item 21)[/url] (specifically the bike symbol) and needs removing. Additionally, the sign [url= http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo6/12-13-14/97/section/57 ]'contains a false or misleading statement'[/url] (not just the riding on Footpaths part, all of it) and needs removing.

This means that the sign is [url= http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/36 ]unlawfully placed[/url]. Or in other words, the sign is actually more 'illegal' than what the sign purports to prevent 🙄

Lastly, *if* it was authorised by the Highways Authority [i]and[/i] the NT (which I very much doubt) then the sign definitely falls foul of their brand standards, specifically the wording. Either way the higher-ups at the NT probably won't be happy to see such a snotty (official or not) sign: -

Page 63 of their [url= http://brandcentre.nationaltrust.org.uk/downloads/2/NT_brand_standards_2014.pdf ]Brand standards[/url]

"Our tone of voice links directly to our values and behaviours"

[edit]

BTW, the Traffic Signs & NT Brand standards link to huge .pdf's, they're only FYI