Plans to extend Forest cycle routes ruled out (From Daily Echo)

This is hilarious, so all the cyclists are damaging the "delicate environment" and cars are absolutely fine? As a country we should be promoting cycling as much as possible as it overcomes all fuel and transport issues and most importantly obesity. This is positively ridiculous and those involved in stopping these plans should be ashamed.

what about the dog walkers who let the animals off the lead and upsetting the local wildlife.or all the walkers and ramblers who go where they like.as said before the new forest is full of nimbys.

The nimby's rule supreme

Willy47 wrote:
This is hilarious, so all the cyclists are damaging the "delicate environment" and cars are absolutely fine? As a country we should be promoting cycling as much as possible as it overcomes all fuel and transport issues and most importantly obesity. This is positively ridiculous and those involved in stopping these plans should be ashamed.

You need to realise that the cars are bound to stay on roads, and car park areas, in fenced by posts and gypsy ditches.
Where as cyclists are not bound by these restrains, and tear up, grasslands, cycle through woodlands, damaging root systems, trample down fauna...
If they were to obey the tracks laid down, then it might be a different story.
If you are so disgusted, maybe you'd like to invite the local cyclists to ride around on your lawn and flowerbeds!!!!!!

Well cars are never bound to saty on the roads as they are not sustainable, bicycles are, and if they actually made some tracks then maybe the cyclists would not have to cycle off road and tear up all the land. So the decision to not make the tracks has just extended the issue.

teamgreen wrote:
what about the dog walkers who let the animals off the lead and upsetting the local wildlife.or all the walkers and ramblers who go where they like.as said before the new forest is full of nimbys.

Yeah but thinking that one complaint is not valid just because another issue exists is ridiculous.

Willy47 wrote:
This is hilarious, so all the cyclists are damaging the "delicate environment" and cars are absolutely fine? As a country we should be promoting cycling as much as possible as it overcomes all fuel and transport issues and most importantly obesity. This is positively ridiculous and those involved in stopping these plans should be ashamed.

No it isn't hilarious but what is disapointing is that people have so little understanding of the new Forest ecology they regard it as some sort of giant public park or play area. Large areas of the forest must be protected from disturbance - particualrly from those with no appreciation of what they are damaging, because for some animals a single disturbance may wipe out their breeding season (not that some noisy cyclists would know a Dartford Warbler from the Datford Tunnel) . And yes dogs too are a nuisance and should also be kept away from large areas of the forest along with their irresponsible owners- just because this is not sufficiently policed does not mean it is somehow ok for more cyclists to swarm over yet more tracks.

Andy Locks Heath. Agree with you 100% the main problem is the dog walkers and the cr*p they leave behind and they dont keep to the tracks, they think they rule the forest.

-stiv- wrote:

teamgreen wrote: what about the dog walkers who let the animals off the lead and upsetting the local wildlife.or all the walkers and ramblers who go where they like.as said before the new forest is full of nimbys.

Yeah but thinking that one complaint is not valid just because another issue exists is ridiculous.

but this was aimed at the comments that are now removed from here so now makes no sense.so not that ridiculous.

Cue Dowfader, Teamgreen and Richrider to come out with the usual cr*p about bikes not damaging the Forest.
Get over yourself! for once you are not going to win this one you are not wanted in the forest except for on designated paths, Oh I forgot we built you these but you dont want to use them as you would rather frighten pedestrians by riding on pavements.
Stay on the paths you are given and obey the forest code and rules.

geoff51 wrote:
Cue Dowfader, Teamgreen and Richrider to come out with the usual cr*p about bikes not damaging the Forest.
Get over yourself! for once you are not going to win this one you are not wanted in the forest except for on designated paths, Oh I forgot we built you these but you dont want to use them as you would rather frighten pedestrians by riding on pavements.
Stay on the paths you are given and obey the forest code and rules.

You do realise that the whole reason the New Forest is here is because the Norman Kings wanted a huge play ground to roam about in hunting and basically joy riding on horses. The New Forest is a play ground for all of us, I'm sure if William the Conquerer were here today he would be in there with the rest of them having a bit of fun riding bikes and horses and enjoying himself.

The Salv wrote:

geoff51 wrote:
Cue Dowfader, Teamgreen and Richrider to come out with the usual cr*p about bikes not damaging the Forest.
Get over yourself! for once you are not going to win this one you are not wanted in the forest except for on designated paths, Oh I forgot we built you these but you dont want to use them as you would rather frighten pedestrians by riding on pavements.
Stay on the paths you are given and obey the forest code and rules.

You do realise that the whole reason the New Forest is here is because the Norman Kings wanted a huge play ground to roam about in hunting and basically joy riding on horses. The New Forest is a play ground for all of us, I'm sure if William the Conquerer were here today he would be in there with the rest of them having a bit of fun riding bikes and horses and enjoying himself.

Yes, Riding horses and hunting, the forest is a fragile environment NOT a playground for all and demands the greatest respect from all its users, something that is sadly lacking in the cycling fraternity

Anything that upsets the condescending arrogance of cyclists is fine by me.

May your frames constantly buckle, and may your tyres always be flat.

Geoff is right. The Conqueror did not regard any forest as a "Playground" but as a strategic protected food source enabling the court and troops to be moved round the country. This is unfortunately what happens when schools stop teaching children our country's history.

Andy Locks Heath wrote:

Willy47 wrote: This is hilarious, so all the cyclists are damaging the "delicate environment" and cars are absolutely fine? As a country we should be promoting cycling as much as possible as it overcomes all fuel and transport issues and most importantly obesity. This is positively ridiculous and those involved in stopping these plans should be ashamed.

No it isn't hilarious but what is disapointing is that people have so little understanding of the new Forest ecology they regard it as some sort of giant public park or play area. Large areas of the forest must be protected from disturbance - particualrly from those with no appreciation of what they are damaging, because for some animals a single disturbance may wipe out their breeding season (not that some noisy cyclists would know a Dartford Warbler from the Datford Tunnel) . And yes dogs too are a nuisance and should also be kept away from large areas of the forest along with their irresponsible owners- just because this is not sufficiently policed does not mean it is somehow ok for more cyclists to swarm over yet more tracks.

So cyclists are not just noisy but "swarming" and "exploding" now are they?
This is indeed "unspeak" of the highest order.
If proper cycle paths and maps are provided, most cyclists will stick to them and not veer off where the horses, dogs and Dartford ramblers can go.
Yes, we need to protect delicate and sensitive environments and habitats.
Yes, we need to maintain areas of "wilderness".
Yes, we need to encourage people to cycle more and drive less.
Surely, these things can go hand in hand with a little negotiation?
As a family, we visited the Forest of Dean recently, which is much smaller than the New Forest. We hired bikes and did a circular ride of ten miles, even my 6 yr old son managed it easily. The gravel path was busy, well marked and trouble free. Everyone had a great day out, no one that I saw complained or went "off route", there was a separate mountain bike track. The bike hire shop was making a very brisk trade too.

Some cyclists in the Forest are a menace belting around in groups down tracks with no regard for animals or people on foot. They are fine on the gravel tracks but in the muddy areas they are doing a lot of damage. As for dog owners, I try to walk my dogs responsibly and avoid causing inconvenience; I have more issue with the lazy people who leave rubbish lying around as if they think the litter fairy will magically appear to pick it up.

There are basically two types of cyclists on the forest and allowing these paths would have been good for the families without any detriment to other users. The other type of cyclist rides off the tracks for the pleasure and skill of riding technical terrain. This does not mean that we are unaware of the habitat. We are certainly doing no more harm than those on foot who go off the paths and without any doubt, way less damage than horses and dogs. The fact that there are/are not cycle paths makes no difference to off road cyclists. The fact that the rules are blatantly biased means I for one will take them with a pinch of salt. Sure, one or two miserable idiots (GAP included) will be offended, but I see a great majority of smiling happy faces when I am out and about.

Andy Locks Heath wrote:

Willy47 wrote: This is hilarious, so all the cyclists are damaging the "delicate environment" and cars are absolutely fine? As a country we should be promoting cycling as much as possible as it overcomes all fuel and transport issues and most importantly obesity. This is positively ridiculous and those involved in stopping these plans should be ashamed.

No it isn't hilarious but what is disapointing is that people have so little understanding of the new Forest ecology they regard it as some sort of giant public park or play area. Large areas of the forest must be protected from disturbance - particualrly from those with no appreciation of what they are damaging, because for some animals a single disturbance may wipe out their breeding season (not that some noisy cyclists would know a Dartford Warbler from the Datford Tunnel) . And yes dogs too are a nuisance and should also be kept away from large areas of the forest along with their irresponsible owners- just because this is not sufficiently policed does not mean it is somehow ok for more cyclists to swarm over yet more tracks.

Andy Locks Heath wrote: because for some animals a single disturbance may wipe out their breeding season (not that some noisy cyclists would know a Dartford Warbler from the Datford Tunnel).

In the 40 or so years I have been riding off the tracks in the New Forest the Dartford Warbler has gone from a few breeding pairs to over 6,000 birds!!! You will just have to get over that fact that cyclists do not cause significant or lasting damage and are here to stay.

Andy Locks Heath wrote:

Willy47 wrote: This is hilarious, so all the cyclists are damaging the "delicate environment" and cars are absolutely fine? As a country we should be promoting cycling as much as possible as it overcomes all fuel and transport issues and most importantly obesity. This is positively ridiculous and those involved in stopping these plans should be ashamed.

No it isn't hilarious but what is disapointing is that people have so little understanding of the new Forest ecology they regard it as some sort of giant public park or play area. Large areas of the forest must be protected from disturbance - particualrly from those with no appreciation of what they are damaging, because for some animals a single disturbance may wipe out their breeding season (not that some noisy cyclists would know a Dartford Warbler from the Datford Tunnel) . And yes dogs too are a nuisance and should also be kept away from large areas of the forest along with their irresponsible owners- just because this is not sufficiently policed does not mean it is somehow ok for more cyclists to swarm over yet more tracks.

Andy Locks Heath wrote: because for some animals a single disturbance may wipe out their breeding season (not that some noisy cyclists would know a Dartford Warbler from the Datford Tunnel).

In the 40 or so years I have been riding off the tracks in the New Forest the Dartford Warbler has gone from a few breeding pairs to over 6,000 birds!!! You will just have to get over that fact that cyclists do not cause significant or lasting damage and are here to stay.

How would you know that, you are riding past at speed with no regard to the damage you leave in your wake.
Just for once obey the rules set down by experts and keep to the paths allowed.
The rules apply to all not just the ones that suit you.

geoff51 wrote:
How would you know that, you are riding past at speed with no regard to the damage you leave in your wake. Just for once obey the rules set down by experts and keep to the paths allowed. The rules apply to all not just the ones that suit you.

Unfortunately the rules do not apply to all, and that is the problem. They do not apply to dog walkers, like you, walkers and horse riders. Therefore the rule is ridiculous. A rule that cannot be enforced is not worth having. I don’t have a problem with dog walking or horse riders, but as long as they use the forest, so will we. I like to see people enjoying themselves and would not do anything to harm another’s enjoyment of the forest. Unfortunately a minority of people need something to be miserable about. Just get out and enjoy the sunshine and remember that a smile makes the world a better place… even if it is at a cyclist on the New Forest!

The one thing that confuses me when I walk in the forest is that the paths are churned up by horses and ramblers, but sometimes when looking for deer tracks I spot the slight marks in the soil of a cyclist rolling past.


I used to cycle a lot, although I've taken to walking a lot more recently. If only I were allowed to ride more in the forest I think I'd enjoy that as I'd get to cover a lot more ground, see a lot more, and also do a hell of a lot LESS damage to the forest than my hiking boots currently do.