Plans to extend New Forest cycle routes ruled out

Daily Echo: Cycling in the New Forest Cycling in the New Forest

AN influential conservation group has rejected controversial plans to extend the cycling network in the New Forest.

The Verderers say cycling in the Forest is not being managed effectively and claim that extra routes would increase the problems being caused by people on bikes.

The proposed extension had been put forward by a working group comprising the Forestry Commission and other organisations.

One of the two new routes would have enabled cyclists to ride from Godshill to Hampton Ridge via Pitts Wood. The other would have linked the Bolderwood Ornamental Drive with a local landmark known as the Portuguese Fireplace.

But the scheme came under fire from the New Forest Association (NFA).

NFA chairman Peter Frost described the proposals as “irresponsible”, saying cycling in the Forest was being promoted instead of managed.

Speaking at the monthly Court of Verderers in Lyndhurst yesterday the Official Verderer, Dominic May, revealed that the additional gravel tracks had been rejected.

Mr May said the proposed Godshill-Hampton Ridge route passed through countryside that had been designated as a tranquil area.

He added: “The Bolderwood Ornamental Drive to the Portuguese Fireplace route has a significant length of grass and dirt track. The court was adamant that no surfacing of grass/dirt tracks should be permitted.”

The Verderers’ decision follows claims that an “explosion” in the number of cyclists visiting the Forest is damaging the fragile environment.

Mr May said: “The court agreed that cycling is not being effectively managed and the proposed new routes will not improve the situation.”

Last month the Forestry Commission issued a statement in response to previous criticism of the way it manages cycling in the area.

The statement said: “We are supportive of cycling as an activity and would sooner people enjoy the Forest on two wheels than four.

“Cycling off the approved network is against Forestry Commission bylaws and we do draw this to attention of cyclists if required.”

Comments (22)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

1:56pm Thu 17 May 12

Willy47 says...

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.
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. Willy47

2:29pm Thu 17 May 12

teamgreen says...

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.
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. teamgreen

2:46pm Thu 17 May 12

acid drop says...

The nimby's rule supreme
The nimby's rule supreme acid drop

2:55pm Thu 17 May 12

sotonbusdriver says...

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!!!!!!
[quote][p][bold]Willy47[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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!!!!!! sotonbusdriver

3:05pm Thu 17 May 12

Willy47 says...

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.
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. Willy47

3:42pm Thu 17 May 12

-stiv- says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]teamgreen[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]Yeah but thinking that one complaint is not valid just because another issue exists is ridiculous. -stiv-

4:31pm Thu 17 May 12

Andy Locks Heath says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]Willy47[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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

5:27pm Thu 17 May 12

espanuel says...

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.
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. espanuel

8:41pm Thu 17 May 12

teamgreen says...

-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.
[quote][p][bold]-stiv-[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]teamgreen[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]Yeah but thinking that one complaint is not valid just because another issue exists is ridiculous.[/p][/quote]but this was aimed at the comments that are now removed from here so now makes no sense.so not that ridiculous. teamgreen

8:48pm Thu 17 May 12

geoff51 says...

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.
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

9:53pm Thu 17 May 12

The Salv says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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

10:08pm Thu 17 May 12

geoff51 says...

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
[quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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 geoff51

10:28pm Thu 17 May 12

BillyTheKid says...

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

May your frames constantly buckle, and may your tyres always be flat.
Anything that upsets the condescending arrogance of cyclists is fine by me. May your frames constantly buckle, and may your tyres always be flat. BillyTheKid

8:55am Fri 18 May 12

Andy Locks Heath says...

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.
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

9:47am Fri 18 May 12

Urbane Forager says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Willy47[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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. Urbane Forager

1:56pm Fri 18 May 12

LadySam says...

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.
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. LadySam

2:34pm Tue 22 May 12

richrider says...

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.
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. richrider

4:15pm Tue 22 May 12

richrider says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Willy47[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote][quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] 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).[/p][/quote] 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. richrider

4:20pm Tue 22 May 12

richrider says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Willy47[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote][quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] 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).[/p][/quote] 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. richrider

7:54pm Tue 22 May 12

geoff51 says...

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.
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

9:17am Wed 23 May 12

richrider says...

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!
[quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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! richrider

3:27pm Wed 23 May 12

Username :) says...

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.
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. Username :)

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree