overthehill Posted May 21, 2007 Report Share Posted May 21, 2007 I have been fairly quiet on the subject of unofficial riders at the ssdt this year, leaving the voices of others to make the point. HOWEVER - today i received an official letter from the Forestry Commission expressing their concern about the unauthorised use of the forest track along the North side of Loch Lochy on the Tuesday of the event. The Forestry Commission are one of our main landowners who welcome us back year after year and a lot of the land used by the event is owned by them (a lot of it is open hill - they dont own just forests). A formal letter of concern from them requires to be taken seriously. Apparently on Tuesday there was a road traffic accident that closed the Fort Augustus -Spean Bridge road for a while - some trail riders decided to take the forest road along Loch Lochy coming out at Clunes. - This road is part of the Great Glen Way; a well used long-distance footpath. Not content with riding unauthorised along the forest track apparently some of them were travelling at 'considerable speed' (the words of several FC staff who witnessed them). Bottom line is that we will probably now have to post a marshall at the end of the road next year to stop any repeat performance. If it was you, perhaps you would like the job of standing at the gate all day next year - No? - i thought not - but someone will have to do it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toofasttim Posted May 21, 2007 Report Share Posted May 21, 2007 Personally I would have taken great pleasure (and a large stick) and stood at that gate all day. Pricks! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Posted May 21, 2007 Report Share Posted May 21, 2007 Obviously this is a subject I have quite major opinions on. I'm going to post something on the front page, but just back from t'pub so probably not a good idea tonight. I'm sure somebody once had a sig about saying and doing things after drink Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
city trials Posted May 21, 2007 Report Share Posted May 21, 2007 If someone covers the beer cost, I'll man the station next year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
telecat Posted May 21, 2007 Report Share Posted May 21, 2007 (edited) One thing I would like to state is that "considerable Speed" is a statement that does not carry much weight with me. Given that I have witnessed people grumble at bikes and cars using low gears and as such high revs going "like a bat out of hell" when they have to me obviously been taking considerable care about their speed I often wonder about the motives behind that statement. I also wonder if the by-ways have been sign posted correctly? Too many authorities decide a Rupp or road is now a Path without consulting there own historic maps and do not apply the correct planning laws. Oh and yes I am "stirring it", authority does need to challenged else we will lose our rights of way. Perhaps we need to look at the tactics of Ramblers who lets face it are militant. Edited May 22, 2007 by Telecat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigfoot Posted May 22, 2007 Report Share Posted May 22, 2007 Obviously this is a subject I have quite major opinions on. I'm going to post something on the front page, but just back from t'pub so probably not a good idea tonight. I'm sure somebody once had a sig about saying and doing things after drink I was stuck in a van waiting for the accident to clear at the time. We were close to the front and the police suggested a way past for trials/trail bike riders was along the forestry road. They said is was a pretty good road used by the military pretty often. We didn't take up the offer as it would have meant leaving the van but if the road had been closed for a very long time I'm sure we would have changed our minds based on what the police said. I'd maybe go easy on anyone who took their advice and Mark maybe you should point this out to the FC in your reply. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overthehill Posted May 22, 2007 Author Report Share Posted May 22, 2007 the police suggested a way past for trials/trail bike riders was along the forestry road. Cheers for this Bigfoot - worthy of letting the FC know. The status of FC roads has always been a bit of a mystery to me - technically thay are the 'Queens highway' as they are owned by the Government however i am sure that there are exclusions that let them keep them closed to vehicular traffic. I was once told that any that are open to vehicle use are subject to Road traffic legislation and have a blanket 15mph speed limit. - not sure how much truth is in this but i do know that 15mph is the FC limit. I am sure that this was a one-off due to the closed road so hopefully will be able to resolve it by posting a notice at the gate onto the road if necessary. Other than this issue the FC did congratulate us on the well managed event. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
telecat Posted May 22, 2007 Report Share Posted May 22, 2007 Unless the FC have an exemption then the rules are:- if the road has no signs and is Unlit The National Speed limit applies. This 60Mph on Single carriageway and 70Mph on Dual. Where the Carriageway is lit then unless signed the limit is 30MPH. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
montaco Posted May 23, 2007 Report Share Posted May 23, 2007 What possible grounds could the Forestry Commission have for making an official written complaint to the SSDT Committee about trail riders riding their bikes on a road that appears to have nothing to do with the SSDT route?. I've followed with interest the forum posts about "muppets" and "illegal riding" but having supped more pints of the local Atlas ales during SSDT week than were good for me, in the company of apparently knowledgable locals, I get the impression that the locals attitudes to riding bikes in the local hills differs greatly from the wild opinions sometimes expressed in these forums. Mike Rapley (Centrally Speaking, 06.05.07) reports that he was told by Willie Gordon, the husband of the pre-65 secretary that already by the Saturday night they had received complaints from landowners. Are we allowed to know which landowners complained, about what, and where the alleged offences took place. Local buzz was that there is a grumpy old shepherd or gamekeeper somewhere (not a landowner) who always complains about everything anyway!. We can all go on about photographing "offenders" (I actually took notes of some myself this year) and reporting them to the police etc, (although not quite sure where the "illegal" aspect comes in) but I suspect we can't really make any reasoned comment unless we know where the specific complaints lie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cota kid Posted May 23, 2007 Report Share Posted May 23, 2007 Send them on a Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overthehill Posted May 23, 2007 Author Report Share Posted May 23, 2007 What possible grounds could the Forestry Commission have for making an official written complaint to the SSDT Committee about trail riders riding their bikes on a road that appears to have nothing to do with the SSDT route?. I must emphasise that the ssdt have very good relations with the Forestry Commission and in the letter they did compliment us on the event management - their letter expressed 'concern' rather than being a complaint about the use of the track. I do agree that the Club cannot be held responsible for the actions of the public who may or may not be spectating at the event and i think that in this case there have been mitigating circumstances - ie the Police informing riders of the route. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.