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.
52 thoughts on “Not In My Back Bridleway: Horse riders object to resurfacing of 50 year old bridleway for cyclists to use too”
The awkward crowing of the
The awkward crowing of the overprivileged as they try to justify themselves. Public spaces can be used by anyone for any legal purpose – the more people using a bridleway the better. And I loved her patronising, distanced view of the disabled.
Also, why don’t horse owners have to clean up after them like dog owners do?
jasecd wrote:The awkward
What a load of utter tripe. I can well understand why horse riders who regularly use this bridleway might object to it becoming filled with other users. Horses can be nervous creatures and the thought of the minority of idiot cyclists who don’t heed this must be a concern to those who’d have to deal with the consequences. Perhaps they’d be more amenable to change if the proposals made the path wide enough so that they’d not have to worry about their horses being spooked? After all, isn’t that what we cyclists also want – space and separation?
And horse owners don’t clean up after their animals because unlike dog poo, horse poo is completely harmless.
Peowpeowpeowlasers
What a load of utter tripe. I can well understand why horse riders who regularly use this bridleway might object to it becoming filled with other users. Horses can be nervous creatures and the thought of the minority of idiot cyclists who don’t heed this must be a concern to those who’d have to deal with the consequences. Perhaps they’d be more amenable to change if the proposals made the path wide enough so that they’d not have to worry about their horses being spooked? After all, isn’t that what we cyclists also want – space and separation?
And horse owners don’t clean up after their animals because unlike dog poo, horse poo is completely harmless.— jasecd
No it’s not – horse manure contains parasites, bacteria and viruses like any animal waste, including Clostridium Tetani, Giardia and Cryptosporidium. So, while it is less likely to make you ill, it can still be dangerous. It’s also not pleasant to ride through.
Additionally I don’t want space and separation, only to be treated as an equal and have my safety respected whether on the road, bridleway or anywhere else. Segregated cycle lanes are important to get people cycling because the behaviour of motor traffic puts people off. One viewpoint is that segregation/separation validates this behaviour – much like needing a separate bridleway because of the “idiot cyclists” you describe.
Public space should be available to be used by as many people as possible – increasing activity levels etc. I’m not saying that we should pave the countryside but the council in question obviously feel that this is a valid use of public money.
Ultimately I think we should only fund things that have a social benefit – I know cycling falls in to this category but I don’t know if horse riding does. Should society subsidise the pursuits of those with privilege and protect their chosen areas of public land?
jasecd
What a load of utter tripe. I can well understand why horse riders who regularly use this bridleway might object to it becoming filled with other users. Horses can be nervous creatures and the thought of the minority of idiot cyclists who don’t heed this must be a concern to those who’d have to deal with the consequences. Perhaps they’d be more amenable to change if the proposals made the path wide enough so that they’d not have to worry about their horses being spooked? After all, isn’t that what we cyclists also want – space and separation?
And horse owners don’t clean up after their animals because unlike dog poo, horse poo is completely harmless.— Peowpeowpeowlasers
Ultimately I think we should only fund things that have a social benefit – I know cycling falls in to this category but I don’t know if horse riding does. Should society subsidise the pursuits of those with privilege and protect their chosen areas of public land?— jasecd
People make huge sacrifices to own horses on quite modest budgets. My aunt has a horse, she teaches special needs kids. A friend has a horse on her nurses salary and one of the secretaries at my mums work has two. Hardley the 1%.
Aside from riding, which is physically more demanding than it looks, looking after horses is proper labour. I don’t think you can argue that sports cycling is less privileged or more socially beneficial than horse riding.
Olionabike wrote:
People make
Hardly the 1% but hardly the typical horse owner either. I don’t really have anything against horse riders but I do have something against elitist thinking and non-democratic use of public spaces, which is how I took the comments in the article.
As to your points I absolutely think you can argue that sports cycling is more socially beneficial – I’d venture that the health benefits are greater and the carbon footprint is far far smaller, not to mention the damage to trails as others have outlined above.
As for privilege, it costs a couple of hundred quid to start cycling and you’re not going to own or regularly ride a horse for that.
Olionabike wrote:People make
Income is irrelevant. They choose to make those sacrifices. We all make sacrifices (AKA choices).
Replace the term ‘horse rider’ with another group and see how it reads.
jasecd
What a load of utter tripe. I can well understand why horse riders who regularly use this bridleway might object to it becoming filled with other users. Horses can be nervous creatures and the thought of the minority of idiot cyclists who don’t heed this must be a concern to those who’d have to deal with the consequences. Perhaps they’d be more amenable to change if the proposals made the path wide enough so that they’d not have to worry about their horses being spooked? After all, isn’t that what we cyclists also want – space and separation?
And horse owners don’t clean up after their animals because unlike dog poo, horse poo is completely harmless.— Peowpeowpeowlasers
Ultimately I think we should only fund things that have a social benefit – I know cycling falls in to this category but I don’t know if horse riding does. Should society subsidise the pursuits of those with privilege and protect their chosen areas of public land?— jasecd
People make huge sacrifices to own horses on quite modest budgets. My aunt has a horse, she teaches special needs kids. A friend has a horse on her nurses salary and one of the secretaries at my mums work has two. Hardley the 1%.
Aside from riding, which is physically more demanding than it looks, looking after horses is proper labour. I don’t think you can argue that sports cycling is less privileged or more socially beneficial than horse riding.
jasecd wrote:No it’s not –
So does soil. Should we ban soil? The natural world isn’t sanitised, if you don’t like that then feel free to stay at home.
Dear Peowpeowpeowlasers,
As a
Dear Peowpeowpeowlasers,
As a child growing up in rural techno-poverty, horses eggs were a hugely important constituent, along with cow pats (best when crusty on the outside but retaining a sludgy soft centre), of the arsenal of weaponry used in conflict resolution. I can assure you horse poo is most certainly NOT completely harmless!
“What larks we had, Pip.”
I do sympathise with the
I do sympathise with the disabled but resurfacing for cyclists? Whatever happened to ride your mtb from A to B and just deal with whatever comes? Hell even if you have to get off and push the journey still continues,
Just because horse shit is
Just because horse shit is benign doesn’t make it pleasant to clean off a cycle, wheelchair or 5 year old, so I hereby propose the following regulation.
All equine quadrupeds to wear a nappy when in public areas. 👿
(Horse nappies do exist. Just enter “horse nappy” into your search engine.) 😀
Im with the horse riders,
Im with the horse riders, bridleways wouldnt exist with horses and MTB’s were invented to ride challenging routes and are allowed to use bridleways. Why sanitise every bit of path in the UK with ‘improvement’ ?
I dislike the constant paving
I dislike the constant paving of country trails. It’s just a townie’s idea of progress often blamed erroneously on health & safety. Much as I love cycling, paving over of our countryside should be resisted as much as possible. Just use a MTB or cross bike ffs!
darrylxxx wrote:I dislike the
As I understand, this is a disused railway line, rather than some ancient country path.
What if I dont have a MTB or
What if I dont have a MTB or cross bike, nor the money to buy one? That’s being just as elitist and exclusive as those horsey types.
Frankly, if it opens up access to the path to more people then great.
Citation required. All faeces can carry pathogens so to say “completely harmless” is not only hyperbole but dangerous nonsense.
Why has this started to
Why has this started to degenerate into MTB bashing? All cyclists of all ages, horse riders, the disabled and walkers of all abilities can all use a way with a Macadamised surface.
As a side note horses being ridden above a walk or trot can cause massive damage to surfaces especially when the surface is wet. When I worked for Beverley Borough Council it took me four days to repair a wide verge after six riders thought it would be fun to use it as a gallop. The repairs had to be done to prevent wrecking the mowing machines.
levermonkey wrote:Why has
And the Ottringham to Winestead section of the Hull to Withernsea cycle/footpath became unwalkable and unridable because of horse riders using it as gallops, damage that was never repaired.
It’s also worth noting that riders are responsible for their horses actions, if the horse is too nervous to use on public rights of way it shouldn’t be there. It’s the horse riders responsibility to ensure the horse is properly controlled not other peoples. According to my late father in law who grew up farming with and training horses, skittish horses are the sign of a bad rider causing concern in the horse not a nervous horse, but then he only had 70 years of dealing with them so probably didn’t know what he was talking about.
Bloody Horses! Why should
Bloody Horses! Why should they get their own roads, it not as if they pay road tax or nuffing!!!! 8}
Thats because there were no doubt 10 of you on the Job. 8 Gaffers, 1 workie and 1 sent from the Job Centre on work experience. Then of course after starting work at 10am, at 10.30 it was break time for 30 minutes, then lunch at 12 till 2, then back to the yard at 3.30 for home at 4 😀
Das wrote:Bloody Horses! Why
There were four of us and I was the acting Ganger.
We started at 0700 and finished at 1630 (0715 to 1615 on site).
Our breaks were two fifteen minute breaks taken at the work site and a half hour lunch break taken at a local cafe.
We shovelled by hand and moved by wheel-barrow ten tonnes of materials (soil and turf). We got no thanks, no pat on the back, no recognition, just complaints from dog walkers that their dogs had nowhere to crap, horse riders because they had to use the road and local residents because the verge looked ugly whilst the works were on-going (I’m assuming it was the look of the verge but it could have been us – it rained all four days).
I hope that sets the record straight.
I rode a bit of this last
I rode a bit of this last weekend – it’s on the Southdowns Way – I was riding a fatbike and it was awful. New chippings are best described as rough ballast. There’s no way it’s suitable for a wheelchair and anyone on skinny tyres won’t be comfortable – I was being bounced around on my 4″ tyres.
I’m quite happy to share the trails with horses – unregulated motorbike riders are a far greater menace.
Why are Road CC making this a bike vs horse debate? If you got your atlas out you’d see that this is in the Southdowns National Park and not the New Forest.
It was awful on a fatty? Fuck
It was awful on a fatty? Fuck me, good luck anyone else!
I think that the SDNPA and
I think that the SDNPA and HCC are doing the correct thing with these works. Previously the Meon Valley Trail had a range of surfaces stone chippings, compacted earth and thick wet mud all occurring at various points. At least now there should be a consistent finish and you can start a ride at Wickham and be confident of reaching West Meon. My understanding is that the large stone chippings which the horse riders are complaining about are not the final finish.
The campaign has also bemoaned the tree clearing but this allows the native downland plants to grow as well helping to ensure that the trail can dry out more quickly.
There is a blog on the works here http://southdownsforum.ning.com/profiles/blog/list?user=3epf5ekcfre0l
I do think cyclists, and
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.
JonSP wrote:I do think
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….
Does every path have to be
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.
“as far as we are aware there
“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.
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’.
Dear Kiwimike,
You say,
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 4×4’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. X( :))
I have ridden this trail a
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.
Such a funny country. Dog
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.
CanAmSteve wrote:Such a funny
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.
How about considerably less
How about considerably less harmful?
Not gonna wade into this too
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.
I think it depends on the
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.
Having seen many an unpaved,
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?
Initialised wrote:Having
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.
In this economic climate? ***10 MILES*** of it?
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.
<"Having seen many an
<"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.
While I’m not particularly
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)
FluffyKittenofTindalos
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 😉
this isn’t my local area so
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
Surfacing bridle ways is
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.
birzzles wrote:Surfacing
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.
There seams to some confusion
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.
Surfacing a bridleway is
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.
rnick wrote: As for 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.
Quote:Surfacing a bridleway
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.
‘most horses are bought /
‘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.
andyp wrote:’most horses are
Great to see these topical jokes on the site.
Old jokes are, er, old……
kwi wrote:andyp wrote:’most
Great to see these topical jokes on the site.
Old jokes are, er, old……— andyp
fight shit with shit, as they say.
I’m not sure how this got
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_91defc4e-faa4-40bd-967a-1fae79016af6.jpg
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.
I have nothing against horse
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.
Why does it need surfacing,
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?
It’s not horse -v- cyclists.
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.