Philosophy | Why? | Green Cross-Country Code | Put-downs
Speaking personally, we can't see any valid objection to cyclists riding on footpaths or any other trails, provided we all do so with due care and attention and consideration for other trail users. In return, of course, we expect consideration from other trail users. All we want, as cyclists, is to have the freedom to enjoy the countryside without damaging it (independent research has demonstrated that cycling does no more environmental damage than walking).
As we can't see and haven't heard any valid objections, we see no need to justify the belief further. However, we will counter some of the objections we have heard. If you have any more objections, or have been presented with any, please contact us and we'll include and answer them here. Antony Hawkins
And? 100 years ago it was illegal to walk over open land such as Kinder Scout. How did we gain the right of access over such land? Our predecessors broke the law in a mass trespass (and had the mountain bike been around at the time you can bet anything you like that some of the trespassers would have been cycling not walking). You don't find many people who refuse to walk in the countryside because access was gained by a bunch of law-breakers, do you?
100 years ago it was illegal for women to vote. 300 years ago we called midwives "witches" and burned them at the stake - legally. Laws change. High-intensity LED rear lights were illegal when they appeared too, as they didn't contain a bulb manufactured to a British Standard. As a sideline, their superior visibility and longevity reduced the chance of you getting run over, but never mind. Laws are always catching up with society. They always have been and they always will be - the whole point is, we believe the law should be changed.
Hmm. No.
The TRF want more access to the countryside anyway, ditto the equestrians, so the access arrangements for cyclists are unlikely to have much effect.
However, this is an entirely fatuous argument - cycling, like walking, is a "quiet recreational activity". Whatever else you may say about off-road motorbikes, "quiet" is not a word that springs readily to mind.
Plus, studies (plural) have shown that cycling does no more environmental damage than walking, which, we suspect, does not apply to off-road motorbike riding, and quite possibly not horses either.
So, judge each case by its merits - to claim that giving cyclists more access would "improve" the case of the TRF is simply an emotive claim with no factual basis.
This is simply a paranoid lie, regurgitated by the uniformed (see also the section below about complaints).
There are irresponsible people who own and ride bikes, true. However, there are equal numbers of irresponsible people who own and drive cars, and equal numbers of irresponsible people who own and use walking boots - the point being, of course, a few people behave irresponsibly and their chosen method of recreation is irrelevant. Bike riders are no more likely to leave gates open, start fires, or chase sheep (baaah!) than anyone else. There's no more chance of finding a drug dealer in a group of mountain bikers than in a group of walkers, or, sadly, a school playground. Generalisations of this type have no foundation in fact whatsoever.
Just like off-road drivers and motorbike riders ("Ooh, noisy, smelly, nasty"), when you actually meet a few of the people involved, for example at a cafe, you'll find they're just that - people. Not evil invaders from another world with the sole life ambition of ruining your day, just people out to relax. True, they might be younger people than you (but not necessarily!), but if you've grown out of your sense of fun, that's not our fault.
The Access Officer of the BMB once made a point of following up every complaint received for six months. He found no evidence to justify any of them.
MBUK Editor Tym Manley once tried to research the "Vast number of letters of complaint" that a National Park claimed to have received. They couldn't produce a single one. But they did say (ahem, cough) they'd had a lot of verbal complaints. But they couldn't find the names of any complainant. And the wardens who received the complaints (cough, cough) "might not remember" receiving them. In short, there were no complaints on record, at all. Not one that the Park could provide any evidence for.
Yes, absolutely true - nearly as much erosion as someone wearing a pair of walking boots in fact. Independent research and empirical evidence has shown that responsible bike riding causes no more - and in some circumstances less - erosion and trail damage than responsible walking. Everything anyone does, anywhere, has an environmental impact, however small. In the case of cycling, these effects are relatively minimal, being equivalent or lesser than the effects of walking.
(Apparently, some landowners have found mountain bikers have caused ruts so big that their Land-Rover tyres fit into them perfectly!)
Here's a thought, taking a wider view of environmental damage - On a bike, even in a hilly area, a 25 mile ride is not out of the ordinary if you have most of a day. In the extreme, an off-road "epic" might cover upwards of 65 miles in a single day. This is obviously a whole lot further than the average walker could cover in the same time. Therefore, the extra range provided by the bicycle means that you can visit and see more remote areas without having to drive to the heart of the countryside. By contrast, to visit or explore the same areas on foot frequently demands the use of a car, just to get close enough to start wandering. Think about this the next time you hear anyone accusing cyclists of damaging the environment.
What makes you more important than anyone else?
It would be nice, sometimes, to be able to ride without being inconvenienced by walkers, dogs, horses, land-rovers or motorbike riders. We don't get that option. No doubt many equestrians, off-road drivers and trail bikers would have very similar opinions, centred about their particular chosen recreation. However, there is a finite space available and a whole lot of people who want to use it in a wide variety of ways. Besides, if you never came into contact with other countryside users, you'd get very blinkered and might forget that your chosen recreation wasn't the only one available to other people.
Then you should be more tolerant of other people and less ignorant to their needs, you selfish git.
No cyclist, to the best of my knowledge, has ever set out on a ride with the sole intention of spoiling anyone else's day. Firstly, it simply isn't worth it, even if someone has wound you up. Secondly, we're only out there to enjoy ourselves and enjoy the wide open space. This whinge is on a par with complaints from people who move from a city to a small village then complain about the cockerel crowing at dawn - it is the whinge of an intolerant, self-centred, small-minded bigot.
You want the right to walk over pretty much any uncultivated land in the whole of the country - as much as four million acres of open space - and you're whinging about us riding along a footpath?
How selfish is that?