You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
The trails are still clear around here, but give it another month or two and they will be overgrown. I used to think it was the councils responsibility to do it, but these days I think if they don't have the funding then I can see why it's at the bottom of the pile.
So I was wondering whether there is any mileage where businesses and users can 'adopt' a trail and contribute or pay for it to be cleared 2 - 3 times per season. I saw a similar scheme in the US in relation to rubbish clearing on sections of road.
I also think there could be mileage in charging the organisers of mass participation events (Wiggle / Evans) for the use of the local roads and trails. Correct me if I am wrong, but does the cash raised in these events go to charity?
Thoughts?
I think the real issue is that councils funding doesn't match their commitments...
I also don't get why you want to tax mass participation events (sportive?) bunging an extra overhead onto events that, for all their other flaws, get people out and riding bicycles seems a bit pointless...
If bridleways were cleared around my way, bloody horses would churn them up at the first opportunity and make them unrideable, if they're not already. Footpaths get far better maintenance.
Besides that, aren't many /most bridleways the land owner's responsibility, not council (if not council land)? The right of way status puts responsibility on the owner to keep access open.
That's the argument about rights of ways I have at the moment. They're not about who's allowed access but are about forcing landowners to provide access, to a specified group. Something I challenge "you're not allowed to ride here" with. I may or may not, that's up to the land owner unless the law has said otherwise.
In the Peak District, row maintenance is often the cause of the problem, not the cure. In a lot of cases, I'd rather the council left them alone.
It certainly wouldn't hurt if private organisations, who make a profit from running events on public rights of way were to make a contribution to the trail pixies who are responsible for a large part of the maintenance of these routes. Trouble is, the trail pixies can be quite shy and elusive. Unless they bang on the doors of the big companies, they'll not even stop to think they exist. Having said that, this does happen occasionally.
I agree, but if the funding raised was specifically put back into cycling then it would not get wasted.
I agree with the horses issue, but I have tried having a conversation with my wife and daughter (both ride) and there argument is "which came first, the horse of the bike". Councils should be able to close bridleways to horse riders if they are becoming too trashed. A bit like they do with Byways
Would I pay? No.
Would I clear it myself? Yes. I have a battery powered hedge cutter and spare battery specifically for the purpose.
Local Ramblers and Horseyists run regular volunteer days doing stuff like this.
Nothing stopping cyclists/mountain bikers from pulling their fingers out their arses and setting up a local group. (theres a couple of MTB groups round the country doing it, eg. peak district MTB, but seemingly very few others willing to step up to the plate)
I agree with the horses issue, but I have tried having a conversation with my wife and daughter (both ride) and there argument is “which came first, the horse of the bike”. Councils should be able to close bridleways to horse riders if they are becoming too trashed. A bit like they do with Byways
Even as a cyclist living in an area where the bridleways have been churned up to the point of having to walk instead of cycle I wouldn't want horses to be banned from bridleways for any period. Horse riders and cyclists need to collaborate in order to gain access to more footpaths so that there is better continuity in the bridleway network. Here in the South East where there is a higher population density we have more cars. It's dangerous to expect horse riders to go on the roads at any time of the year. It's not like horses can wait out the poor weather like humans can. They need the exercise so must be taken out. The ground being churned up is just an inevitability of the type of weather we have in this country and not something we can control so I persuade myself to accept it. Horses have just as hard a time on the bridleways that they churned up as cyclists do.
I do agree that responsible landowners must ensure access to bridleways is maintained and passable. So, clearing undergrowth, blocking access to motor vehicles whilst still allowing horses and bicycles through. Many landowners are capable of doing this so I think all of them should. You can see how many landowners would be reluctant to upgrade paths to bridleways given the choice. They do cost more to maintain and they are more vulnerable to motor vehicles gaining access.
The pressure to upgrade footpaths to bridleways needs informed, passionate people who are able to research historical records and retrieve as much historical evidence as to RoWs' previous use. It's not easy, so pressurising horse riders is certainly not the way to go. Around here there's a lot of pressure from one horse riding group to upgrade a particular footpath which would have benefited cyclists. Unfortunately they lost the case as they couldn't persuade the council that historically the footpath had previously been public bridleway.
So, I personally would be willing to strim along my frequently used overgrown bridleways but as to the legalities of this I don't know. You'd need permission from the landowner I'd expect, whether that's a private individual, local council or a Trust. You'd need to know who the landowner is and ask them if you can clear the RoW. Probably best get their response in writing too. This could also raise the awareness that their RoW actually need tending too, in which case they might do it them selves. I can't see how you could earn money for it though. The council employs contractors, Trusts employ volunteers and not all private individuals will be willing to pay.
I believe bridleways are local authority responsibility, which one of the many reasons they play lip service to attempts to get them upgraded. Footpaths are landowners responsibility.
Even as a cyclist living in an area where the bridleways have been churned up to the point of having to walk instead of cycle I wouldn’t want horses to be banned from bridleways for any period. Horse riders and cyclists need to collaborate in order to gain access to more footpaths so that there is better continuity in the bridleway network. Here in the South East where there is a higher population density we have more cars. It’s dangerous to expect horse riders to go on the roads at any time of the year. It’s not like horses can wait out the poor weather like humans can. They need the exercise so must be taken out. The ground being churned up is just an inevitability of the type of weather we have in this country and not something we can control so I persuade myself to accept it. Horses have just as hard a time on the bridleways that they churned up as cyclists do.
100% agree with that. I don't want to risk my life on the road and don't think it's safe for horses either. It's more a case of pointing out why bikes are not horses yet the RoW act thinks they are. We need our own rights of way (off road) or be allowed to ride footpaths, because bikes/pedestrians and horses don't really mix. Around Surrey with a lot of horsey folk, I've got options of bridleway or nearby footpath. I'll frequently take the footpath as I'm doing less damage and it's nicer to ride, and the horses can enjoy the bridleway which provides their own challenges. Challenged occasionally with "this is a footpath!" and I'd point out the bridleway and ask "would you like to walk on that vs this nice footpath?".
Horses do churn up paths, often very badly.
It would be nice if our so called all terrain mountainbikes were designed to be capable of being ridden on all terrain likely to be reasonably encountered, like say horse churned bridleways...
ie, fatbike time. 🙂
The pressure to upgrade footpaths to bridleways needs informed, passionate people who are able to research historical records and retrieve as much historical evidence as to RoWs’ previous use. It’s not easy, so pressurising horse riders is certainly not the way to go. Around here there’s a lot of pressure from one horse riding group to upgrade a particular footpath which would have benefited cyclists. Unfortunately they lost the case as they couldn’t persuade the council that historically the footpath had previously been public bridleway.
To be honest, the strongest approach for cyclists to take is not getting tied up in historical claims and concentrating on getting together evidence of use to apply for upgrades based on 20 years use.
No. Not needed. If it needs clearing then clear it . Ground conditions don't count. After all this is about mountain biking . Mud etc doesn't matter really, just get off and walking or go to pay on a sanitised trail park somewhere.
Clearance can be land owner or authority. No fixed rule and costs etc can be just silly. Various safety rules don't help. Sadly no on can easily get rid of a RoW even if they don't want it. Councils won't take the land off a private owner who can't afford to keep it clear.
As to the footpath thing. Selfish. When every bridle way and higher RoW has been ridden I'll just say go and ride them again. until then don't demand some body elses pleasure. We need to keep some things precious. I assume all those who want to cycle on footpaths are happy for me to maintain my decades old tradition of riding my trail bike on RUPPS.
No.
But I do go out and do a bit of Ninja clearance on bridleways in my local forest which otherwise would be overgrown with "seedling" trees & over extending branches ..I don't get official permission from the FC to do this as it would involve a lengthy H&S sermon everytime !
The Bacho Laplander folding saw is your friend !
20 years of MTB use doesn't qualify for prow upgrade, unless a horse has used it you are going nowhere with that strategy. If a horserider has used it you need their evidence and then and only then is MTB use worth anything as supporting info
The only way forward for MTB is to campaign for use of footpath prow. Getting bogged down in the current process to gain a few hundred yards here and there before the claims window closes in 2025 is a desperate waste of good people's time
Re: clearance. My understanding is that the landowner is that the landowner is responsible for keeping the trail clear of vegetation, obstacles etc,and the highways authority (usually county council if not unitary authority ) is responsible for the surfacing of the track being fit for purpose.
Could be wrong on the first point, was advised by works solicitor on the second.
Cheers
Keith
I do it. I batter some nettle patches down, often secateur back small branches and trees, dig a drain/move some rocks....
20 years of MTB use doesn’t qualify for prow upgrade, unless a horse has used it you are going nowhere with that strategy. If a horserider has used it you need their evidence and then and only then is MTB use worth anything as supporting info
I'm sorry, but you're quite simply wrong.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/16/section/68
The only way forward for MTB is to campaign for use of footpath prow. Getting bogged down in the current process to gain a few hundred yards here and there before the claims window closes in 2025 is a desperate waste of good people’s time
That only works if there is appetite at a departmental or government level for wholesale review of ROW legislation. I can guarantee you from discussions at a very high level on this, that there currently isn't (at least in England, the situation in Wales is still awaiting a clear answer from the second stage of their access consultation last year) Where I'll agree is that getting bogged down in historic evidence claims for a few hundred yards of route before 2026 isn't the answer... but 2026 has nothing to do with claims based on long/20 years use.