Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

news

Not In My Back Bridleway: Horse riders object to resurfacing of 50 year old bridleway for cyclists to use too

Cyclists, disabled people, and children expected to benefit from resurfacing of disintegrating railway bridlepath

Horse riders in Hampshire have expressed their outrage at plans to resurface a bridleway to allow access for cyclists, disabled people, and children.

The permissive bridleway along the Old Meon Valley disused railway line has been used as a horse riding route for more than five decades, but now planners intend to make the 10 mile route useful to other users.

South Downs National Park and Hampshire County Council intend to upgrade the path in a £310,000 project which will see the park closed for several months while work takes place.

A local livery yard owner Kathryn Montague has set up a Facebook group named “Save Our Bridleway — Meon Valley Disused Railway Line” - and both cyclists and horse riders have registered their objections.

Mrs Montague told Horse and Hound: “Riders and cyclists have used the disused railway line for years and it is totally unnecessary to spend thousands on resurfacing it.

“The path is perfect for a trot or canter, but we’ve now been told we should only be walking.”

She added that disabled people would be unlikely to use it as there was no nearby parking.

David Deane, joint cycling projects officer for the South Downs National Park Authority and HCC, said: “The trail is in desperate need on an upgrade, with overgrown trees on steep embankments that are prone to collapse in high winds and a muddy surface that rarely dries out,” he said.

Mark Weston, director of access at the British Horse Society, said: “This truly is a multi-user route and, in partnership with the South Downs National Park Authority, HCC is repairing the surface to accommodate other users.”

He added “as far as we are aware there are no proposals to tarmac any sections of the route”.

Horse riders in Hampshire have often found themselves pitted against cyclists in recent years.

Earlier this year we reported how New Forest MPs have once again called for statutory regulation of sportives — and it appears that cycle sports's national governing body, British Cycling, agrees.

The New Forest National Park Authority (NFNPA) has approved a cycling events framework that includes a 1000-rider limit on rides in the forest. Representatives of cycling bodies strongly opposed this move, and the only event organiser to have run events on this scale in the park has said he will not comply.

Faced with that opposition New Forest East MP Julian Lewis and fellow Tory Desmond Swayne, MP for New Forest West, say they will press for legal restrictions on sportives.

Mr Swayne told the Southern Daily Echo: "The charter is a step in the right direction but it’s voluntary.
“A limit on numbers is an important element. That is why we will continue to try to get enforceable regulations.”

And last year the New Forest National Park Authority decided not to go ahead with the planned implementation of a 'Boris Bike' style network of hire bikes. Had the project gone ahead it would have been the UK's first rural hire bike system.

In a statement, the authority said that its 12 members were concerned about the system's financial sustainability and believed that "the likelihood of the system receiving significant sponsorship had markedly reduced since it was originally conceived".

Just previously, UK Cycling Events, the organiser of two annual sportives in the New Forest, found a new base for the rides to put them out of the reach of New Forest NIMBYs.

Vociferous criticism from a small number of New Forest residents and councillors last year led UK Cycling Events to look for a new venue for the start of the ride.

There have been attempts to sabotage the rides, including tacks being dumped on the routes and signs being torn down.

After talking to other venues, including Gang Warily recreation centre in Blackfield, the rides will now start at Matchams Leisure Park, just outside the western edge of the New Forest and across the River Avon in Dorset.

Add new comment

52 comments

Avatar
stevod | 8 years ago
0 likes

It's not horse -v- cyclists. All the cyclists around here think it's worse too. It used to be a great trail to cycle down, alongside horses, walkers, dogs, runners and families.

The concern is all to do with the unsympathetic hard stone surface that has been laid without proper consultation. I walk, run, and cycle on the trail, and the new surface is so much worse for all of these, let alone horse riding.

That's before you get into the issue of a pretty countryside trail now looking like a road.

And as for as the contractors here are concerned, it is essentially finished.

Avatar
Goldfever4 | 8 years ago
0 likes

Why does it need surfacing, what's wrong with improving the surface and clearing up the trees a bit? Similar to the great work people already do on other bridleways and MTB trails?

Avatar
crikey | 8 years ago
0 likes

I have nothing against horse riders and welcome their input to the development and maintenance of the bridleway network; they have a good deal more influence than cyclists in that regard. My comment was aimed at refuting the claim that owning a horse has the same running costs as owning a bike, which is nonsense. Horses require a great deal more in terms of financial input and in terms of labour to keep them in good health.

Avatar
neil_mtb | 8 years ago
0 likes

I'm not sure how this got twisted into a horse vs bike issue. The issue with the Meon Valley has nothing to do with that debate and as such horse riders, cyclists, walkers, runners, dog owners etc have all come together to campaign against the work done on the trail.

The facts are: The surface layed is inappropriate for horses as well as other users, the surface (shards of waste stone, great on tyres by the way..) is too hard resulting in concussive injury and/or the loose stones kicked up damaging the sole of the hoof. This is an issue even at walking speed, this has nothing to do with horses travelling at speed (I've never encountered a horse on the MVT going beyond a walk personally). There have also been walkers and runners saying it hard on the feet and legs, dog walkers saying its made paws sore.
Then we get to the sanitising of the trail. Granted it needed some maintenance, but the work done stops just short of running a B-road. Mature trees have been cut down and undergrowth flailed.

Before and after..
http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/660/media/images/82154000/jpg/_82154190_91d...

As for the other, rather inflamitory, comments:
Horse riders are for the most part not elitist. At least in my experience. A quick google suggests that most riders are girls aged 16-24. It's rediculously easy to get a horse to ride, people are practically giving them away because of the running costs. If you can't afford those then there are many people willing to loan or share a ride.
There was an almost slanderous comment about the person who started the campaign doing so for their own benefit. Lets get one thing straight, this work impacts all existing users of the trail. It benefits everyone to get the work reviewed now before the trail is completely ruined, at least any further than it has been.

I'll say it again, this is not an us and them issue. This is about everyone working together to stop and over sanitisation of a trail that was perfectly usable, albeit needing some maintenance, that could have easily been adapted in part for those that needed it.

Avatar
andyp | 8 years ago
0 likes

'most horses are bought / sold for less than we pay for a bike'

Ah. I think others are talking about a *live* horse, not a Tesco beefburger.

Avatar
kwi replied to andyp | 8 years ago
0 likes
andyp wrote:

'most horses are bought / sold for less than we pay for a bike'

Ah. I think others are talking about a *live* horse, not a Tesco beefburger.

Great to see these topical jokes on the site.

Old jokes are, er, old......

Avatar
andyp replied to kwi | 8 years ago
0 likes
kwi wrote:
andyp wrote:

'most horses are bought / sold for less than we pay for a bike'

Ah. I think others are talking about a *live* horse, not a Tesco beefburger.

Great to see these topical jokes on the site.

Old jokes are, er, old......

fight shit with shit, as they say.

Avatar
crikey | 8 years ago
0 likes
Quote:

Surfacing a bridleway is entirely inappropriate

Um... no.

If we accept bridleways as acceptable for cyclists and horses then the surface needs to be able to withstand the effect of hooves and tyres.

Use by horses on a soft surface messes it up for everyone, hence the need for resurfacing.

Perhaps you could provide some figures as to the cost of having a horse including the initial purchase and maintenance figures over a typical year of ownership, including feed, stabling, vet fees, insurance and so on...

http://www.equine-world.co.uk/buying_horses/cost_horse.asp

This seems to indicate costs of between £3000 to £10000 and would therefore suggest that you are talking a load of old bollocks.

Avatar
rnick | 8 years ago
0 likes

Surfacing a bridleway is entirely inappropriate, it smacks of public sector spending to meet a target / goal. Why not fix a few pot holes instead?? As for horse riders being an elitist group - what a joke...most horses are bought / sold for less than we pay for a bike and running costs are broadly similar (based on 20 years of the Mrs running a horse). We share the same road from time to time and also the same experiences of bad motorists...and if a horse is in front of you do slow down and shout "mind if I pass" before whizzing past, as we do hate it when car drivers give us a close pass. As for horse shit being poisonous, no way - my kids have probably ingested a fair quantity over the years and apart from being wormed occasionally, are still fine...the greatest risk posed being slipping on the stuff.

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... replied to rnick | 8 years ago
0 likes
rnick wrote:

As for horse riders being an elitist group - what a joke...most horses are bought / sold for less than we pay for a bike and running costs are broadly similar (based on 20 years of the Mrs running a horse)

Oh, come on! That's just ridiculous!

I have no wish to pick a fight with horseyists, they do me no harm and barely impinge on my conciousness (I did google to see if there was any climate-change arguments one could throw at them, but it seems they just aren't in the same league as cars on that one, so fair enough).

But this claim is silly. I suggest keeping a horse in my hallway would be a mite more akward than the bike, and apart from stabling cost and space requirements (land has rental value), I'm pretty sure the feed and vetinary care for a horse is a bit more than the £100 I spent on the bike last year.
(and even that involved stocking up on inner tubes only to find I suddenly stopped getting punctures once I bought them, so now they're just sitting there!)

Anyway, it sounds as if the row in the story isn't really about horses vs bikes at all, but between different locals with different priorities.

Avatar
levermonkey | 8 years ago
0 likes

There seams to some confusion between a Macadamised surface and a TarMacadamised surface.

A Macadamised surface is an unsealed surface with graduated stones getting smaller towards the topmost layer. This road surface is suitable for all road users with the notable exception of motorised traffic.

A TarMacadamised (TarMac) surface is sealed surface and is identical to a Macadamised surface with the exception that the layers of stones are held together by the addition of bituminous tar. This surface was developed to cope with the ravages of the motorcar.

These are very simplified descriptions but I hope they are of some use.

Avatar
birzzles | 8 years ago
0 likes

Surfacing bridle ways is wrong. It is a terrible crime against the countryside, it really pisses me off when I came across a new strip of Tarmac cycle way whre previously it had been cinder or dirt.

Avatar
kevvjj replied to birzzles | 8 years ago
0 likes
birzzles wrote:

Surfacing bridle ways is wrong. It is a terrible crime against the countryside, it really pisses me off when I came across a new strip of Tarmac cycle way whre previously it had been cinder or dirt.

This one isn't/hasn't/won't be covered in tarmac. There is no plan nor was there ever a plan to tarmac this route.

Avatar
Northernbike | 8 years ago
0 likes

this isn't my local area so don't know the full story but is this really a bikes vs horses story at all or rather a horse and bike riders who do want to resurface the path vs horse and bike riders who don't? Further, where people get the 'bikes common, horses posh' method of assessing everything about a person by their mode of transport is a mystery to me I'm afraid as lots of quite ordinary folks ride horses and lots of quite well off folks bomb around the county on very expensive bikes at the weekend. It's a shame how a debate about what to use to resurface, or not, a short bit of path can become so tribal and it's a shame to hear bike riders accusing horse riders of being a bunch of well off hobbyists who just get in the way of more important people on bikes when if they thought about it for a moment that might sound a bit familiar as the kind of language levelled at cyclists by the 'don't pay road tax' wing of the motoring lobby. I know it's the way of internet forums and I should be used to it by now but it's still a shame

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... | 8 years ago
0 likes

While I'm not particularly sympathetic to horse riders (it _is_ an expensive activity and hence one mostly for the well-off, and its far more of a hobby than a practical means of transport), all the same, I'm not particularly enthusiastic about paving bridleways.

I'd rather see space provided for cycling by being taken from cars, than having the rest of the country paved over.

(I realise 'paving' is probably an exaggeration in this case - but same principle applies, its a switch from motorised vehicles to bikes that I'd rather see)

Avatar
OnTheRopes replied to FluffyKittenofTindalos | 8 years ago
0 likes
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

While I'm not particularly sympathetic to horse riders (it _is_ an expensive activity and hence one mostly for the well-off, and its far more of a hobby than a practical means of transport)

Yes its a good job cycling is only a practical means of transport and not carried out by those with disposable incomes riding aimlessly round in circles on carbon fibre frames and deep section wheels and Oakley Sunglasses  3

Avatar
Initialised | 8 years ago
0 likes

Having seen many an unpaved, off road route ruined by tarmac, widening and straightening I'm inclined to agree with the horse users on this one. Having routes that aren't suitable for buggies gives cyclists and horse riders quiet routes where they can ride fast in the knowledge that they aren't likely to be either endangered by motorised traffic or endangering pedestrians.

For the best of both worlds a parallel route could be created for accessibility and leisure use keeping the existing route largely as is for the more adventurous users.

Walkers have footpaths where cyclists and horses cannot (legally) go and these are often useless for the disabled and buggies (but perfectly usable by MTB/CX riders). Where are the calls to open these up to mobility scooters and buggies?

Avatar
KiwiMike replied to Initialised | 8 years ago
0 likes
Initialised wrote:

Having routes that aren't suitable for buggies gives cyclists and horse riders quiet routes where they can ride fast in the knowledge that they aren't likely to be either endangered by motorised traffic or endangering pedestrians.

I think the whole point here is that the surface is so badly degraded that no cyclist - even on a fatbike - is going fast. And that it's basically impassable by anyone not on a decent MTB or willing to get filthy.

And FYI we used to run on tracks with our BabyJogger buggy that most cyclists would have a bad time on. 'Suitable for buggys' does not equal 'paved smooth'. Look at the many paths in the New Forest.

Initialised wrote:

For the best of both worlds a parallel route could be created for accessibility and leisure use keeping the existing route largely as is for the more adventurous users.

In this economic climate? ***10 MILES*** of it?

Initialised wrote:

Walkers have footpaths where cyclists and horses cannot (legally) go and these are often useless for the disabled and buggies (but perfectly usable by MTB/CX riders). Where are the calls to open these up to mobility scooters and buggies?

Totally different issue. The issue here is a local business owner disagreeing with the national equestrian access organisation about the right to gallop hell-for-leather in a shared space with no requirement to reinstate each time.

Avatar
kevvjj replied to Initialised | 8 years ago
0 likes

<"Having seen many an unpaved, off road route ruined by tarmac, widening and straightening I'm inclined to agree with the horse users on this one">

It's an old railway line - it's already straight and was once very wide. IT IS NOT GOING TO BE COVERED IN TARMAC. The path will not be finished until after May - the current surface is not finished. Essentially this is a route that should be available to as many users as possible. The only people complaining appear to be those who want it kept just for themselves.

Avatar
Quince | 8 years ago
0 likes

I think it depends on the nature of the trail.

I've got nothing against certain bits of land being seriously skewed towards the needs of horse-riders, at the cost of usability for cyclists (etc.). Equally, I don't expect any of my local MTB Trails to be redesigned to accommodate horses. Or much else apart from MTBs. In many cases it's better to do one thing properly than aim for a muddy medium.

But the fact that this is a disused railway and not a handful of isolated fields suggests that the route could provide a serious, safe transport route for a large number of people to use practically.

I hope the decision lies with someone impartial and informed. Either way, some people will benefit and others will lose out. How many people gain/lose, and by how much, is the real question, and one I don't know the answer to.

Avatar
EddyBerckx | 8 years ago
0 likes

Not gonna wade into this too much but if you read up on it...the British countryside (bridal ways an all) are about as natural as the international space station. We need to remember this when weighing up certain arguments.

Avatar
vonhelmet | 8 years ago
0 likes

How about considerably less harmful?

Avatar
CanAmSteve | 8 years ago
0 likes

Such a funny country. Dog craps in the road - clean it up or be fined. Horse craps 10X as much? NO problemo - just leave the steaming pile there. Cyclists, motorcyclists and scooter riders all love that stuff on their faces.

And what percentage of the population ride horses? 1%? Compared to ramblers or cyclists? So I understand this elite being upset about losing their exclusive access to bridleways - but what exactly is the purpose of a bridleway? Is it not to make land accessible to all?

Hampshire actually isn't that bad compared to W Berks. Most of the bridleways here are so poorly maintained even mounted riders need thornproof clothing.

Spain seems to be able to make shared use paths that are not tarred but rather compacted soil with a fine gravel top - usable by almost anything. But then all their rain falls in the plains.

Avatar
wycombewheeler replied to CanAmSteve | 8 years ago
0 likes
CanAmSteve wrote:

Such a funny country. Dog craps in the road - clean it up or be fined. Horse craps 10X as much? NO problemo - just leave the steaming pile there. Cyclists, motorcyclists and scooter riders all love that stuff on their faces.

Unpleasant as that is my major concern is the loss of traction going round a bend when the tarmac you were on is replaced by a patch of manure.

Avatar
ajwilcox | 8 years ago
0 likes

I have ridden this trail a few times on touring bikes with 35mm tyres. It should be an easy trail for less experienced cyclists eg young children with no severe gradients. It was however a bumpy slippery and dangerous path which could in sections only be ridden at less than touring speeds of say 10-12mph. Passing in either direction at some sections required one party to stop and pull over. You certainly couldn't pass a horse safely.

It needed resurfacing and clearing.

Perhaps I will try it again and see if it has been improved.

Avatar
vonhelmet | 8 years ago
0 likes

Does every path have to be traversable by everyone? Motorways aren't designed for horses, pavements aren't designed for cars, maybe we should accept that bridle ways aren't for every man and his bike.

Avatar
JonSP | 8 years ago
0 likes

I do think cyclists, and mountain bikers in particular, should be building bridges with horse riders, not setting up as opposing camps. It is indeed true that bridleways exist because of horse riding and bikes are latecomers.
Probably the best manifesto for improved access I've ever seen is Making Ways for Horses from the Equestrian Access Forum. And they specifically call for extensions of access to apply to bikes.
Horse riders (not all of whom are horse owners, of course) aren't all privileged toffs – many on quite modest incomes. The biggest difference demographically is that far more of them are female while most MTBers are male.
'Sanitisation' of trails, or whatever you want to call it, isn't a horse v bike issue anyway.

Avatar
robert posts child replied to JonSP | 8 years ago
0 likes
JonSP wrote:

I do think cyclists, and mountain bikers in particular, should be building bridges with horse riders, not setting up as opposing camps. It is indeed true that bridleways exist because of horse riding and bikes are latecomers.
Probably the best manifesto for improved access I've ever seen is Making Ways for Horses from the Equestrian Access Forum. And they specifically call for extensions of access to apply to bikes.
Horse riders (not all of whom are horse owners, of course) aren't all privileged toffs – many on quite modest incomes. The biggest difference demographically is that far more of them are female while most MTBers are male.
'Sanitisation' of trails, or whatever you want to call it, isn't a horse v bike issue anyway.

Completely agree.
And all the 'just get on your MTB' is more of the same...car driver says get a car, able bodied say get on an mtb.... Babies are not going to manage and neither are disabled people, or perhaps disabled people should just stay indoors out of sight....

Avatar
KiwiMike | 8 years ago
0 likes

“as far as we are aware there are no proposals to tarmac any sections of the route”.

as I read it, they are talking about an all-weather surface made from natural material - NOT tarmacing it.

A horse walking/trotting has the same impact as a trailbike. When galloping, it's a trailbike on full throttle making a roostertail. The description by Levermonkey is apt: ***a week's work*** to repair horse damage done by just six animals.

And let's contrast places you can take a horse, vs. places you can take a child, free from traffic. Horses can ride on *any* bridleway/greenlane. Many/most bridleways/greenlanes are impassable to all but fit cyclists on decent MTB's, much of the year. And a lot of the reason is the damage horses do to the surface, encouraging runoff, ruts, bogs etc to form.

Horses are also a purely recreational toy - and a very expensive, carbon-intensive one requiring use of a vehicle most of the time unless you live close to a bridleway yourself. Bikes can and should be part of local transport solutions. A 10-mile stretch of decently-surfaced traffic-free route should see a lot of non-recreational use too.

Sorry, but no sympathy for horse owners/riders who are being asked to walk instead of blast through. This is the crux of the matter: these complaints are because the horse riders are being effectively forced to *slow down*. On a trail where small children/families are present. Again, no sympathy. This is not about RDA or gentle hacking being curtailed - it's about hoons on horseback not being able to gallop.

"Mark Weston, director of access at the British Horse Society, said: “This truly is a multi-user route and, in partnership with the South Downs National Park Authority, HCC is repairing the surface to accommodate other users."

There you go. The national body fighting to keep and maintain access for horse riders agrees this is A Good Thing. Seems to me this is a storm in a teacup, stirred up by a local business owner with a vested interest in herself/her clients having somewhere close to ride fast. Like a bikeshop near the Two Tunnels trail in Bath requesting the right to hold TT's on it.

* and yes Road.CC - it's silly to juxtapose this issue with the New Forest. I honestly thought you had a major content management meltdown there.

** FYI my kids ride horses every week - so I'm hardly 'anti-horse'.

Avatar
3wheelsgood replied to KiwiMike | 8 years ago
0 likes

Dear Kiwimike,

You say, "Horses are also a purely recreational toy - and a very expensive, carbon-intensive one requiring use of a vehicle most of the time unless you live close to a bridleway yourself."

You may be astounded to learn that horses have a perfectly legal right of access to thoroughfares other than designated bridleways.

Great aunt Estelle, 87, much to the enormous consternation of the emmetts in their sweaty, tinted 4x4's, rides Primrose four miles to the local shop (for local people, there's nothing for you here) and back several times a week. She has been appraised of you offensive comment, sir, and will undoubtedly be paying you a visit to rectify you bigotry and instill an appreciation of diversity in all things equine.  14  21

Pages

Latest Comments