You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
The negotiation process has been ongoing for years, and it continues to be. If you look at my second post it shows just how many organisations were and are involved in keeping access for the MTB community.
NWMBA are just one group that represents us. If it wasn't for groups such as this, and MTB Wales we would not be allowed up full stop. The hours and effort people put in can be ruined by an idiotic minority.
So far the process has been a success, and we have been praised by various access groups that represent all users of the National Park. In order to continue the work we have to show we are responsible and flexible. We have ,until recently, been seen as the new upstarts who want access to already crowded places.
We are being heard and we are making progress, but incidents like this take us 2 steps backwards.
Since we are ‘banned’ from virtually all the good, natural trails in the UK owing to them being footpaths
Only England and Wales, in Scotland we're much more forward thinking.
However, the agreement is very one-sided. I don’t have a problem with a reasonable degree of bias towards the larger user group – but the current agreement is by no means as balanced as it should be.
Agree. Maybe there should be a ban on walkers after 5pm so we get a clear run down. Fair's fair.
I do think there have been some knobbish comments on here, from people who seem to think F*** you to other people we have to share outdoor space with, and that the 'tourists' that crowd up Snowdon should just have to put up with us.
I do get that we should challenge the access laws in England and Wales, and I often exercise my views on that by riding designated footpaths and 'bits of cheek', but generally try not to be a knob about it, and crucially, choose the time and place so that it's quieter and less likely to piss other people off.
A bit of mutual respect and consideration to other users goes a long way and is just basic human decency. We live on a crowded island and whether we are bikists, tourists, mountaineers, families with children, horse-riders, dog walkers etc etc, space is often at a premium in lots of places in the countryside. In the same way that those of us who commute or ride tarmac feel unsafe when a car rushes past with little consideration for our safety, I think on Snowdon, at busy times, we need to put ourselves in the shoes/boots/flip-flops of those walking up and down and think what it feels to have a bunch of MTBs hurtling down, scattering slate and shale at 30mph.
The voluntary ban is just an admittedly imperfect solution to try and make sure a little respect, consideration and common sense goes around.
On balance the whole ‘voluntary agreement’ or ‘ban’ or whatever seems to work reasonably well on a mountain that is probably too busy at peak times for mountain bike riders to get what they want from a descent.
However, I do wonder if anyone has asked foot-based users if they’d be interested in a quid pro quo and mirror-image ban in high season - no walkers or runners before 9 or after 5 or whatever it is?
They tell us to get stuffed, of course, because the organised ramblers are often a bunch of miserable old ****s who have a lot of time on their hands to write letters of complaint etc.
In this particular case, the sheer busyness of the trails make it actually impractical that all user groups can enjoy it in the manner they want to. Fair enough. But a lot of of the MRAs will not view it as a successful voluntary agreement. They will view it as a ‘victory over those hooligans*’.
*Hooligan = anyone who wants to enjoy the countryside in a manner with which they disagree.
Quote from the access bod in the MBR article:
Cyclists should also be mindful that under Countryside Act 1968, they should give way to both pedestrians and horse riders at all times on a bridleway, and failure to do so (that is riding in a manner which is deemed to be reckless) is a criminal offence under the Road Traffic Act 1988.
I'm aware of the first half of this - can anyone point me towards the clause in the RTA 1988 that covers the second assertion (other than on a public road)? Having trouble finding much in the Act except that which refers to mechanically-propelled vehicles on BWs.
Presumably, said access bod believes that a failure to give way to horse riders and pedestrians could constitute an offence of dangerous cycling under the 1988 act.
I’ve been up there a good few times on my bike and on foot.
Riding in the mountains is fun, the views, the big day out feel, riding at ‘altitude’ with drops and valleys below you is ace. You can’t compare it to Stiniog or CyB, as good as they are.
I’ve pushed up the Llanberis path from about 4pm on a crappy day and had nothing but positive/jokey comments. No hassle. Take your shades off, make some eye contact and treat people as you normally would.
Helvellyn is also fun, just need to Ben Nevis now...
@monkeysfeet. I applaud what you're doing but if you can't convince the powers that be that they'll always have to accept a number of asshats who don't give a shit then inevitably the access will get shut down.
I abide by the "voluntary" agreement but if the day ever comes that they hit with the ban stick all bets are off and me and my mates will en-masse ignore it and ride whenever we want, safe in the knowledge that, realistically, there's sod all that can be done.
But I'm firmly with you. As an anarchist the best way to prove you don't need rules is to act in a way that shows you don't need 'em 😉
Presumably, said access bod believes that a failure to give way to horse riders and pedestrians could constitute an offence of dangerous cycling under the 1988 act.
Didn't realise BWs were considered as roads for the purposes of the act. Every day's a school day.:)
I applaud what you’re doing but if you can’t convince the powers that be that they’ll always have to accept a number of asshats who don’t give a shit then inevitably the access will get shut down.
+1 .There will always be those who choose not to abide by the agreement and just decide to ride the BWs as is their right, or who somehow aren't aware of the voluntary restrictions. The National Park et al will have to decide whether this justifies a full ban, which is unlikely to improve matters, and may even worsen them. Have they got the resources to enforce it?
I'm guessing there is an upsurge in people breaching the agreement which starts around the beginning of May each year...might be a bit early to tell if things are better/worse/the same as previous years. Still I guess the dire warnings will help get the word out.
I agree Chevychase. You will never please everyone but on a positive the thread has got folk talking about access issues and with everything that has been going on recently surrounding access issues this can only be a good thing.
What is nice to see is so many folk like yourself who are as passionate about these issues as me.
Thanks to everyone who contributed. 😀
There is a time and a place for action, a time for being well behaved and a time for change.
What doesn't work is doing all 3 at the same time in different directions
Chevychase nails it.
I comply with the current agreement. However, the agreement is very one-sided. I don’t have a problem with a reasonable degree of bias towards the larger user group – but the current agreement is by no means as balanced as it should be.
I am also unsure that this agreement is helpful to the wider-debate of access. To my mind it reinforces the attitude that people who cycle are a marginal group that represent a danger to others using the outdoors and are generally have an undesired impact on the environment. Education and awareness would deliver a better long-term result IMHO.
wise words from jamj1974
And for god's sake can people stop calling it a volountary ban. It's not volountary.
And for god’s sake can people stop calling it a volountary ban. It’s not volountary.
TBH, it's not a ban.
Anybody actually keen for a run down Snowdon at lunchtime Saturday?
It's not a ban, it's a good suggestion as to how to have a better ride
and can someone tell me how to spell volounteer.
A bit of mutual respect and consideration to other users goes a long way
Yes I imagine it would. Unfortunately cyclists as a group get very very little respect.
I can't be arsed finding the specific post, but some muppet above suggested that we don't need to ride Snowdon because we have Antur and CyB. Words fail me on how to respond to that.
As a number of people above have asked, how do we all think the establishment would react if we chose one solitary (proper) mountain and told walkers that they're not allowed on it between certain times as we want to enjoy it ourselves.
And then to take it to it's ridiculouse conclusion. What do you think they'd say if we took the ONLY mountain they currently had access to and told them they weren't allowed to between certain times as we want to enjoy it ourselves.
Or slightly more fair, and less silly. We could designate one path (sorry bridleway) as being for bikes only. **** all chance of that happening.
Just to clarify, do any of the people supporting the ban support it because it is a fair way to control access to the countryside resources; or do they just support it because we've been threatened with a bigger stick if we don't obey?
TBH, it’s not a ban.
bollocks. Define a ban, and then define what is on Snowdon
@thegeneralist - I support it because 640,000 people from all walks of life, children, the elderly and inexperienced, walk up Snowdon every year, because it's an amazing experience and an event in it's own right.
It's *not* an average mountain.
It's totally self-evident that mountain biking in those sorts of crowds is inherently dangerous.
So, in the summer, I get up early, or go up late. I camp at the foot of the mountain and kayak on Llyn Gwynant and eat steak and drink wine during the day when the crowds are getting sweaty up top. It's brilliant - and the ride is better because there are less people when I do venture up.
Do I like the ban or "voluntary agreement"? No. Of course not. I'd love a private mountain to myself, of course.
But I don't live in fairyland - and the agreement is not unreasonable. It's a solution that allows mountain bikers year-round access to the mountain whilst safeguarding the millions of n00bs who are, quite rightly, attracted to Wales's premier tourist destination.
So, we get to bike when there's less people, all year round. Only fools have a real problem with that.
So, we get to bike when there’s less people, all year round. Only fools have a real problem with that.
+1000
I support the agreement, as do the bulk of the mtb 'community', because it is a sensible way to manage traffic on that particular mountain. But the not-so-veiled threats of a complete ban from the authorities because a few idiots don't observe it are a poor response. There will always be idiots, but they are a tiny minority.
Especially as a complete ban would potentially have a worse outcome for public safety.
Carrot as well as stick would be nice - how about the responsible attitude of a large number of riders being rewarded with the plans to upgrade of more FPs to BWs to other summits in the Glyders or Carnedds? Moel Siabod?
Last time we rode it was about 25 years ago on rigid MTB's with canti's !!
Rode up the Rangers, then hike a biked the top section (remember rock climbing with bikes on our backs) then down the Llanberis Path. We all crashed trying to get under the railway bridge as it was that loose, we couldn't turn.
These days I don't fancy the 2-3 hour mixed ride/push - it's the 'pushing' that causes me back problems (recovering from a broken spine).
We did it on a freak day in February when the sky was totally clear. Must have been mad on rigid MTB's though.
Strava!
I think the problem this year is that the late snowfall has meant it was unrideable for a lot longer than usual coming towards the start of the restriction so there are a lot more riders who want to tick it off their list. Therefore there is more pressure at the beginning of the season so some people are ignoring the agreement as they see it as they have lost some access time. Add in the usual ones who ignore the restriction altogether and you have the current situation.
I don't agree with riding during the restriction times at all although I have pushed up ready to descend after 5 once. I've done 6 ascents of Snowdon by bike now, first one was in 1998 with v-brakes!! Last one was 3 years ago just before April. In all that time I've only had one person tell me off for being up there with my bike and that was quickly defused by explaining why there was a restriction during the summer and that I wasn't treating it as a recetrack. I remember the fuss that brought in the agreement, a few groups racing down and hitting walkers IIRC, so would never knowingly do anything to cause access to be denied to bikes. It is a great challenge to tick off but it's not a ride you'd want to do regularly for the exact same reason. If you go up there with the idea of getting down as fast as you can, hucking off stuff then you really need to go elsewhere. It's a ride to enjoy at a safe pace and to enjoy the experience.
Good luck to everyone fighting our corner.
Well said Daern.
Totally agree with the VBB, it's there for everyone's safety. There's no reason why you can't ride/push up early doors and enjoy the ride down, which ever route you so choose, while the sun comes up, best part of the day!
We did it in March last year, again still set off up early to avoid the busy time of the day, yes there was walkers but they were all very pleasant and moved aside, most of them actually cheered us on coming down and were very friendly! we respected them (slowed down on passing where it was narrow) and they respected us...everyone's happy, lets keep it that way.
Monkeysfeet. Thank you for working with others to advocate for access for people on bicycles - I sincerely appreciate it. The fact the agreement is as it is - shows how hard you must be working to push for access. It must be like pushing water up a hill (Or mountain even...). I also agree that:
The voluntary ban is just an admittedly imperfect solution to try and make sure a little respect, consideration and common sense goes around.
However, there should be a better way to manage access to a special and limited resource in our nation. Managing access by type of self-powered locomotion seems arbitrary, draconian and very imbalanced.
I do think we don’t help ourselves. Evident from this thread - many of us see our use of bikes marking us out as unusual or different. I do not think we are. We are still making our way up and down a mountain under our own power, like other committed outdoor users. We enjoy the scenery, the challenge and the sense of ‘occasion’ that being in mountainous country does - the same as others. We use similar routes and likely have no higher-impact than others - it is a lump of rock after all.
In terms of crowding, I also can easily see why anyone might choose to avoid the area in peak times. It is no different to any attraction from theme parks, shopping centres, cinemas etc... I prefer as many of you seem to, a less crowded and more peaceful experience. I understand the argument of people on bikes travelling at speed hitting others and causing injury, but how often does that oft-used example really happen? Probably less than other factors remaining uncontrolled on Snowdon - such as unsuitable clothing and preperation, injuries impacting the unfit and incompetent etc...
In my experience, most of us going on bikes into the larger outdoors - outside of trail centres are more competent than than the average person walking. There seems to be more of a focus on appropriate weather, clothing, food and safety than other users. Again in my experience, people on bikes exploring the outdoors outside of trail centres are a pretty considerate and thoughtful bunch. The amount of times I have been offered assistance or checked on by a fellow bike rider - is hugely greater than when I am in a similar environment on foot.
So, I do not see how we significantly differ from the other users of the mountain? We are part of that 640,000 number above - no more or less. Amongst us are the considerate, inconsiderate and complete arseholes - just as there are in people walking, running or catching a train up. Bearing in mind, that the level of risk to others and the lack of consideration might be being overstated - exactly why is there resistance? Could it be less to do with logic and more to do with prejudice or selfishness?
In short, I would like to see the needs and desires of people riding bikes treated like anyone else’s. If people on foot can access easily - I am not sure why we cannot. I don’t see it being an entitled attitude more than someone walking not wanting bikes around. In fact I see it as a less-entitled attitude. I don’t see that as people on bikes we are asking anyone to “just put up with us” - no more than we put up with other users. We are all in it together surely?
It's a blinkered attitude @jamj1974. We come down at speed. It's inherently more dangerous than walking for other users. Injury isn't the only issue - we *scare* other users. And whether you care about that or not, it's a fact of life you have to accept.
Grannies and kids and the incompetent, which the mountain is covered in in the summer, have just as much right to be there as us - and maybe they're a danger to themselves. They're certainly more likely to have problems when bikes hurtle down the slopes and they're struggling for breath and their awareness is low - so they can't move out the way.
Yes, we'd all love to be treated equally. But life ain't fair - and this agreement keeps us on the slopes legally. So it's not a big deal, unless you make it one.
Sacrificial mountain. You couldn't pay me enough to ride (or walk) it now, although it serves a useful purpose as a honeypot. However - why are you tiptoeing round the curious coincidence that the increased ban flouting coincides with e-bike uptake? Just asking, like.
Chevychase. I’d prefer we tackled the issue of people riding with a lack of consideration and took action against them specifically. What we are doing at the moment is impacting many people using bikes for the actions of a minority.
I do care about others - very much so. However, I’d suggest, there also needs to be education of other users if they have an out of proportion fear. We should also consider other options (Actually, I am sure people like Monkeysfeet have been doing this.). There is no logical, reasonable reason why one route e.g. Rangers Path could not be prioritised for bikes and others for walking or horse riding.
Grannies and kids and the incompetent, which the mountain is covered in in the summer, have just as much right to be there as us
Of course they do, and the opposite should also be true...
But life ain’t fair
Of course it isn’t - but this could be made more so if people representing other users could change their minds and others who are incompetent - could also be also educated to behave appropriately with regard to be more aware. It seems to be that after what I am sure has been a huge effort by people like Monkeysfeet, we have been pushed to accept a poor arrangement - rather than taking this on in the wider context of better access full stop. We are paying the price for the obstinacy, inconsiderate behaviour and narrow mindedness of others.
As I said earlier, I comply with the arrangement - as I do not want to cause aggravation or threaten the ability to access the mountain full stop. However, I do believe that something along the lines of the mass trespass is needed to improve access for bikes to our outdoors. Not that I would suggest Snowdon would be an appropriate place to do that!
Thanks @monkeysfeet for your persistent efforts on our behalf - I'm very happy you are representing us.
@chevychase you make excellent dispassionate arguments - your lack of desultory tone is a strong tool and many others would be wise to emulate it!
Confirmation bias is a powerful thing - I'm generally well-disposed to other people no matter what mode of movement they're presently employing and it's no coincidence I find them amenable to my presence whether I'm walking, running or riding. If you accept that a small faction of any subgroup of mountain-user will be unwilling to share nicely and are nice to them anyway you'll notice more of the other members' friendliness. Simple really.
As for the specifics of the voluntary ban, it's really not much of an inconvenience, is it? If it were a slippery slope other routes would have been closed to bikes in peak season, which hasn't happened. OTH this is a sensitive period of negotiation - showing respect to walkers at this time bolsters the general perception of bikes on trails as being harmonious with other users. Calling for walkers to be banned when bikes are allowed might be tempting but that's rather missing the point in favour of a titfertat payback - it is penalising walkers rather than rewarding cyclists especially and as such presents as childish - and isn't really necessary as the trails are quieter so there's more time to adjust one's riding, just as it's easier for walkers to step out of the way of people on bikes.
At the end of the day though it just makes sense to avoid busy pedestrian routes at peak times - Jacobs Ladder the other Saturday had literally hundreds of walker on it, making any kind of flow impossible. Still very fun top section working on trials skills waiting for a line to open up between walkers, going up high on a fallen wall section to get past a score or so, etc. Calling from behind while approaching at a safe speed I found everyone to be very obliging/encouraging/bewildered-but-friendly. It was fun but wouldn't have been if I'd been keen to beat my PB on Strava or less happy to prioritise the safety and enjoyment of people walking. Went back Monday evening and didn't see a soul, making it easier to get on with the bike flow.
The comment about incompetent users is nothing but churlish. Are my children not allowed climb Snowdon because they haven't passed a competency test? That argument opens up invitation for MTB users to have to undergo a competency test, which is clearly a nonsense and unenforceable idea which I doubt anyone here wants.
Dutch traffic law works thus: everyone is responsible for ensuring the safety of anyone more vunerable than themselves. So lorries have most culpability, pedestrians the least. Or put even more simply: #ruleno1 and be nice!
Maybe there should be a week or two in the year solely for biking with no walkerists
But yeah – liking that scotroutes
They don't give a damn about bikers access so don't ever expect a day without walkers
this voluntary agreement doesn't appear to be very voluntary to me. if other users are still entitled to be there when riders are allowed to use the mountain, presumably they accept the risks associated with yobs on bikes careering down the hill towards them? i would doubt it, if you asked them. as someone else has said above, in not so many words, it's just about not being a dick. if i see other users, walkers, or whatever on a trail i would otherwise being using at speed, i slow down, make sure they know i am there, and make sure i pass the time of day, even if it's just a 'hello, thanks!' as i go by giving them as much room as i can. i think this situation would be better dealt with by removing any restrictions, but just laboring the point that it is just much better ridden when it is quiet. no-one wants to go all that way up for a shit ride down, and the restriction, with associated threats, just puts people's backs up unnecessarily. ultimately, ban me if you want, catch me if you can would be the result. i don't think i'm generally prone to behaving like a dick ( though others may disagree! ), but treat me like one, and i might be more inclined to behave like one.
it’s just about not being a dick. if i see other users, walkers, or whatever on a trail i would otherwise being using at speed, i slow down, make sure they know i am there, and make sure i pass the time of day, even if it’s just a ‘hello, thanks!’ as i go by giving them as much room as i can. i think this situation would be better dealt with by removing any restrictions, but just laboring the point that it is just much better ridden when it is quiet. no-one wants to go all that way up for a shit ride down
I agree with much of that.
Very good posts from jamj1974 and Del.
The fact is that people's fur is always going to get rubbed the wrong way when you tell them what they can't do.
But if those same people can't take a step back and ask themselves honestly whether it's reasonable, regardless of what they as individuals want, then that's a problem with *them* - one that probably dogs them elsewhere in their lives (whether they're aware of it or not).
The word "voluntary" has a whole different meaning for you, yeah?
The fact is that people’s fur is always going to get rubbed the wrong way when you tell them what they can’t do.
Most of us seem to be happy with the present arrangements, as I am. But this whole thread has arisen as a result of the authorities complaining about a small number of riders riding out of hours.
While by and large we accept the restrictions, the other side of the voluntary agreement coin is that the National Park and others recognise that it will get breached from time to time by a minority.
Waving the big stick around at the rest of us by threatening a complete ban seems ludicrous, as it just risks goodwill and the spirit of cooperation which makes the agreement work by and large.
It would make more sense if they were threatening to formalise the existing hours/dates in a bylaw and actually enforce it rather than to chuck all of us off the mountain full stop.
The ban will always stay. Snowdonia is that busy they don't need our business plenty of walkers money changing hands. Early or late is better for clear runs anyway. I'd still ride if a complete ban but still in those times and still politely. Being cheered on by a mob of walkers while descending is well worth a few polite how do you dos on the way up and down.
Looking at this it doesn't look much fun at peak time.. Assuming he didn't know about the agreement.
Why ride it at all, it looks far to busy to be fun, other mountains are available.
Just go when it's quiet, then it's fun.
Rather than restrict access, open it up, build more trails. everyones happen. (well apart from the people that think uk hills and uplands are natural undiscovered wild areas! )
I don't see the problem with this, particularly on a peak where they've built a ****ing train track up it.
I wouldn't go as far as to say that I've always only encountered positive reactions from walkers up hills in Scotland, but the vast majority of interactions are positive, and I always in return try to be considerate to any other countryside users.
they’ve built a **** train track up it.
Aye that didn't go unnoticed! 😆 farcical doesn't even begin to describe this nonsense!
Don’t forget the fallout shelter at the top as well.
New tracks are a no go. There's some incredibly rare nature on the mountain that walkers and bikers don't come across on the ten or so trails that criss cross the area.
Agree about the stick waving. But tbh I don't flout the rules and understand it's aimed at the bloody-minded minority that seem intent on ruining the experience for other users, walkers and MTBers alike...