A local councillor’s claim that he was verbally abused and threatened by cyclists after pointing out that they couldn’t ride their bikes on an ancient hill fort has been slammed by one of the mountain bikers involved in the confrontation, who says it was the politician who “started ranting at us” and that they were not riding their bikes on the historic landmark, but had in fact pushed them up the hill.
The cyclist, who claims the councillor appeared above them as they sat and chatted, before shouting at them and threatening to phone the police, has also criticised his “inaccurate, self-serving” account of the incident (a short video of which was sent to road.cc), and has reported his “inflammatory actions” to the council.
Last week, we reported that West Mercia Police and local neighbourhood groups have pledged to increase their patrols in the Malvern Hills, after reports of confrontations between cyclists and walkers on British Camp, an Iron Age hill fort located at the top of Herefordshire Beacon and designated as a scheduled monument, protecting it against unauthorised change.
While the area around the hill fort is popular with cyclists, and a bridleway exists above the reservoir, cycling is not permitted elsewhere on the monument.
The existence of that no-cycling zone prompted Malvern Hills district councillor Paul Bennett to confront three mountain bikers on Sunday 18 August, who he claimed were riding their bikes on British Camp, to inform them that cycling was not permitted.
He told road.cc: “I was walking my dogs at the top of the Herefordshire Beacon/British Camp and saw three men with bikes on the slopes of the summit. I did not approach but called over to them and just said.. ‘Hi guys, you might not know but bikes are not allowed up here on the scheduled monument’. Normally, this simple bit of information is met with a ‘sorry’, ‘I did not know’, or just a ‘thank you’…
“Not in this case. The youngest of the three stood up and told me to ‘f*** off’, adding ‘Haven’t you got anything better to do?’ Then he and his father came over and squared up to me, being aggressive and completely unreasonable. I walked away and immediately phoned the police. I felt intimidated and avoided walking anywhere I might bump into them again.
“Some minutes later, other walkers I came across, told me the group had cycled off the Beacon and left. Two of the three were abusive and aggressive, the third person did not get involved. I assumed these people were tourists but have now been told they may be more local. Cyclists are normally careful, courteous and good people to be around. Almost all keep to the designated bridleways and tracks on the Malvern Hills and those who are on the ancient monument usually behave reasonably when told it is a protected site.
“I represent a ward that actually pays for the upkeep of the Malvern Hills and British Camp by way of a precept added to the council tax. No one should pay to repair damage that can be avoided and British Camp has been a protected ancient monument since 1923. The rest of the Malvern Hills are a great place for cycling and can I just say thank you to all of the cyclists who treat the area so well.”
Calling for ‘No Cycling’ signs to be installed at the site, Bennett told the local press: “British Camp won’t exist eventually as every time people go with bikes there is further damage. We all need to make sure it isn’t damaged, as we’re custodians of the future.
“It’s important we preserve it when we can, as it’s a focal point for tourism for the entire area.”
“People like you damage this”
However, the councillor’s account of the confrontation on British Camp has since been vehemently denied by one of the three cyclists involved, as well as one witness, who claimed it was Bennett who was initially aggressive and that they had pushed their bikes upon entering the no-cycling zone.
Describing the incident, the cyclist, who wishes to remain anonymous but is known by ‘Ouzel’, told road.cc: “My friends and I often meet up on the Malvern Hills for a beer and a natter, and sometimes some mountain biking, although a little bit less of the latter of late.
“On the day, 18 August, we arranged to meet up as usual. As always, we cycled independently – we live on opposite sides of the Hills – to the Hills, for a bit of exercise, to save the planet etc. I rode my commuter road bike, with pannier, rear rack, hub gear, I think it is about 11 km, with a fair amount of on-road climbing.
“We met up at our usual spot on the ramparts of British Camp Hill Fort, pushing the bikes up from a drover’s track that runs below and to the west of the Hill Fort. We usually sit on the outer moat of the Hill Fort, quite a way below the top. However, on this instance, the wind was blowing strongly from the west, so we picked our bikes up and walked them over the ridge to the more sheltered east side.”
The cyclists sit near their bikes on British Camp (supplied)
He continued: “We plonked the bikes down, and sat with our backs to the wind, admiring the view to the east, maybe five metres below the ridge line and the path which snakes along the top.
“We’d been sat there for a few minutes, when Bennett started ranting at us, from above and behind. His thesis seemed to be that we should not be there with bikes, whether we were riding them or not, though he subsequently claimed we abused him whilst riding our bikes.”
In a short video sent to road.cc, Bennett can be seen standing on top of the hill, with two dogs beside him, looking down at the cyclists, who, as Ouzel noted, were sitting on the hillside, some distance from their bikes.
“Just get on with your day, mate,” one of the cyclists can be heard saying in the clip.
“No, I’m not,” Bennett responded, “Because people like you damage this.”
“Oh what, and the dogs?” one of the cyclists says. “Your dogs, they’re digging, going around.”
“There was a bit of an exchange, with us remaining seated,” Ouzel continues. “We tried to say that we were doing nothing wrong, that it was perfectly legal to walk a bicycle along a footpath, something Bennett denied. We asked him to leave us alone, but he continued to be abusive, threatening to call the police.
“Then things got more shouty. At that stage I just tried to disengage, one can’t reason once people start shouting, but my friends eventually cracked and took umbrage and ran up the hill to where Bennett was standing, and the exchange became more heated. That was probably unwise. I wish they had just stayed seated.
“Eventually Bennett went. Someone known to one of my friends came over and offered commiserations, then all three of us reunited in our sheltered spot to continue our chat.”
“He is trying to provoke a public outcry against cycling on the hills”
Ouzel’s account of the incident has been backed up by one apparent eyewitness, Ian Curtis, who claimed in a comment under the original story in the Malvern Gazette that he has “witnessed the whole altercation and that Bennett had “started to shout at the men very aggressively”.
“Three men were sitting on the ramparts facing the reservoir below the top of the hill. They did have bikes, but I only saw them pushing them before they sat down. A man appeared above them, who I now know to be Paul Bennett, and started to shout at the men very aggressively,” Curtis said.
“I heard him say something about them not being allowed to be there. I heard one of the men shout back, ‘sorry we are doing nothing wrong, we’re just enjoying the view’, and another shout, ‘please just get on with your day, we didn’t even cycle up here, we pushed our bikes’.
“Bennett continued to shout very aggressively saying he was going to call the police, and one of the men shouted ‘please do’. I thought to myself, what an idiot, verbally attacking people doing absolutely nothing wrong. If the men did swear at him, which I did not hear, I would not have blamed them as Bennett was being totally unreasonable.”
Commenting on the councillor’s portrayal of the confrontation, Curtis continued: “Bennett is not acting with integrity and honesty, as the article is full of lies. He was also not treating these people fairly and with respect, he did not politely say anything.
“It seems to me that by antagonising these people and then making up a story like this, he is trying to provoke a public outcry against cycling on the hills. This is just another example of our elected representatives being unable to tell the truth. He certainly would never get my vote.”
Ouzel also told road.cc that he believes there are “several untruths” in Bennett’s account, and that he has “made a formal complaint to Malvern Hills District Council concerning the behaviour of their councillor”.
“Bennett has a history of being antagonistic to cyclists,” Ouzel continued. “Those of us who live and work in the area all love and appreciate the Malvern Hills. It is in everyone’s interests that users are civil, act responsibly and display a degree of tolerance to others.
“Bennett’s inflammatory actions and self-serving, inaccurate portrayal of events run counter to all that. They have also been exploited by a variety of anti-cycling groups as an excuse for further progressing their agendas.”
Following Bennett’s claims appearing in the local press, a spokesperson for the Malvern Safer Neighbourhoods Team (SNT) said: “This area of the Malvern Hills is one that we patrol on a regular basis and will not tolerate abusive and offensive language from other users of the Hills.
“We patrol on bikes most commonly, to allow us to cover a larger portion of the hills on a single patrol, but cover some areas on foot. Especially as some areas are not permitted for bikes.
“It is appreciated that cyclists occasionally accidentally stray from the approved areas for bikes, but we would encourage cyclists to familiarise themselves with the maps of the hills that are available for free from the Malvern Hills Trust.
“If asked to not cycle in an area, to appreciate that the Malvern Hills Trust staff are just doing their job and are enforcing the restrictions to keep the hills maintained and safe for everyone to enjoy.”
25 thoughts on “Cyclists hit back at “inaccurate and self-serving” account of “ranting” councillor who claims mountain bikers abused him for pointing out no-cycling zone on historic landmark”
The words “storm” and “teacup
The words “storm” and “teacup” come to mind.
It probably doesn’t quite
It probably doesn’t quite meet the threshold for calling a COBRA meeting but people in public office shouldn’t get away with the behaviour alleged.
classic manipulative bullying
classic manipulative bullying, he’ll be believed because he’s a councillor, in fact he’s a liar and a bully, standard
The word Karen springs to
The word Karen springs to mind. A small minded person with the merest trace of authority who thinks he is Napoleon.
The internet reckons the
The internet reckons the masculine singular of a “Karen” is either a “Ken”* or a “Kevin”.
*I suspect a Ken is probably better dressed 😉
Are you sure it’s not a
Are you sure it’s not a “Kelvin”?
As a councillor myself, I
As a councillor myself, I know that there are standards of behaviour when representing the council and misrepresenting yourself in a report to the media and to the police certainly seem to cross that line. I hope the council and the Lib-Dems investigate and take appropriate action. He sounds more like one of the Progressive Independent Group (PIGs) on my particular authority.
eburtthebike wrote:
That can’t be right – after saying that you follow the correct form and criticise someone in the same position. However I imagine you actually regularly attend council meetings, have some understanding of how local government works etc. If you said “as a cyclist myself” I’d understand you only cycled a couple of times a year on holiday and had a hazy recollection of the Highway Code, with several embellishments!
chrisonabike wrote:
I don’t understand how a single word of that is relevant to what I said.
It’s entirely tangential;
It’s entirely tangential; however clearly the week has been too long for me. Time to get out!
The saying Empty vessels make
The saying Empty vessels make the most noise seems to apply to this councillor.
This isn’t news.
This isn’t news.
Person in authority/general public states hatred/distrust/anger towards anyone on a bicycle, perpetuating the slide of UK highway/transport mode culture into the toxic aggressive self-righteousness that only the British can so pompously defend.
From street loud speakers announcing ‘no cycling here’ to bits of paint being ticked off as ‘cycle infra’, from judges giving dangerous drivers a ‘naughty driver warning’ to constabularies not bothering with cyclists’ video footage of dangerous driving, the UK is too stupid to connect all this too the abysmal decline in cycling.
The race is on; will enough drivers die of obeseogenic disorders to reduce the number of cyclists being killed by same?
I do shake my head in
I do shake my head in disbelief at the people who cry that people in the 21st century seem to be capable of damaging structures and geological features that have survived for millenia. I have seen pictures of people climbing all over Stonehenge from as recent as the 70s and now its got a stupid fence around it so people dont damage it. How old are them blody stones? I think they are robust enough. The hill in the clip. Its thusands of years old,. Its survived a hell of a lot but oh no a bike with rubber tyres will annhiliate it. This isnt a fine ming vase or a grand maserpiece oil painting . its a hill made of soil and dirt. It will still be there long after we are gone and I doubt its going to look any different to what it does today.
Hmm… in fact some of the
Hmm… in fact some of the stone stuff is no longer really there because in the past people re-used the stones, or dragged the out of the way, or helpfully reconstructed things how they thought they should look! And as for earth – little but often makes a big impact, as you can see from when paths get popular.
I guess there’s another debate about whether we should preserve these things at all and how.
By the other accounts the Councilor appears to be “hot-tempered”, have got the wrong end of the stick (or just hates a cyclist) and then deployed the usual range of political manipulation skills.
I’m still fine with the principle of “but maybe don’t cycle over *everything*, m’kay?”
I woud say a 100 people
I woud say a 100 people walking on a hill causes more wear than 2 people riding. And I would say that for every cyclist there are probaly more than 100 walkers so that puts your little but often argument in its place.
As for the Stonehenge damage, that has been 1 or 2 people. They were ne’er-do-well types up for mischief not general public who just want to look at them and climbing on them really didnt do much harm. As I said , they are 5000 years old, how many people in that time do you think have stood on them or climbed about on them? But its only now we must protect their fragility?
Smoggysteve wrote:
Not really. Because if those two people got off and walked, you’d still have only ~1.02 times the amount of damage instead of ~twice as much.
Your argument is equivalent to saying it’s OK for me to take a flight every week because there are (more than) 50 other people who take one once a year.
I think the key is
I think the key is responsible riding, especially in sensitive areas e.g. don’t lock up the wheels; if the earth/turf is saturated with water, try to avoid riding on it if you can – choose another route, or ride your road bike.
mdavidford wrote:
Your maths is so wrong there but I’m not even going to attempt to explain why because I’m pretty sure you wouldnt understand.
bikeman01 wrote:
Okeydoke.
It is a well-established fact
It is a well-established fact that people on foot have on average the same impact as people on bikes. In fact, often hikers cause more damage, as they skirt around puddles or muddy bits that cyclist ride through. Every footstep around a puddle widens it. There are sections of hiking trail many meters wide, that have never seen a bike (unless Danny Mac was passing). Anyone who’s been at a 24hr MTB event knows the (lack of) damage cyclists cause – literally tens of thousands of passes, and within a few days you can’t tell. Whereas 10,000 people walking through a wet track often looks like a war zone.
People have been known to
People have been known to chip away at the stones for a souvenir.
bensynnock wrote:
When we recently visited a glacier in Norway, I joked that I was bringing back a piece for my friend that studied geology. My follow up was that I lost it and now my clothes are wet.
Wildly differing accounts of
Wildly differing accounts of the same event? Summits up here.
So who is telling the truth?
So who is telling the truth?
Well, the video shows the
Well, the video shows the cyclist were off their bikes, sat down, asking Bennett to leave them alone. Pretty clear, surely ?