More than 100 miles of off-road cycle routes in the New Forest could be axed unless Forestry England acts upon a court’s warning to “toughen up” on what it claims are “out of control” cyclists in the national park.
Forestry England, which manages the New Forest, had been seeking a three-year extension of access to the network of waymarked tracks – including bridleways, gravel tracks and fire roads – from 2021-23, reports the Advertiser & Times.
However, the Verderers Court – a body dating back to the 13th century which carries out similar functions to a magistrates’ court in relation to certain matters related to the New Forest – has only provided a 12-month extension.
The court has told Forestry England that no further extensions will be granted unless it takes steps to stop riders from deviating from the marked paths – with one verderer recently fulminating against “gangs of hardcore bikers determined to ride where they please.”
Forestry England deputy surveyor Bruce Rothnie outlined to a meeting of the Verderers Court last month steps it planned to take to ensure cyclists keep to permitted routes, in response to claims that those who did not were disturbing wildlife and causing environmental damage.
Measures proposed include using its website and social media channels, as well as those of the New Forest National Park Authority, to highlight the need to cycle responsibly, and getting rangers, both on foot and bicycles, to speak to cyclists to make them aware of the issues.
It said it would seek to establish cyclists’ understanding of where they are allowed to ride through getting some riders to fill in questionnaires, as well as engaging with local bike hire shops and cycling organisations.
Mapping will be updated, and there are also plans to improve signage for cyclists in the area.
Those measures do not go far enough for the Verderers Court, which in granting the one-year extension to access warned Forestry England that it needed to “toughen up” the proposals for any future extension to be granted.
The Verderers Court consists of 10 members, five of whom are elected by the 700 or so New Forest commoners – those who occupy land or property that has rights over the Forest.
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Forestry Commission, the National Park Authority, and Natural England appoint one member each, while the chair of the court, who carries the title Official Verderer, is appointed by the Queen.
Anthony Pasmore, elected a verderer in 1973 and a commoner for more than 60 years, wrote in a column in the Advertiser & Post earlier this month: “We are not dealing with family parties or small urban children, innocently straying off the permitted routes through a lack of understanding, but with gangs of hardcore bikers determined to ride where they please, disturbing the peace and cutting up the Forest.”
The New Forest’s popularity for recreation and leisure, plus its status as a Site of Special Scientific Interest and the common pasturing rights enjoyed by commoners frequently cause tensions, also due to the often conflicting priorities of the various bodies involved.
Cycling is a regular issue of contention, with sportives targeted in the past by saboteurs spreading tacks or removing or changing the direction of signs, and the charity Cycling UK has described local opposition to cycling as “entirely irrational.”
> New Forest defends its record on cycling following unflattering comparison to other national parks

52 thoughts on “Threat to axe New Forest’s off-road cycle network as court criticises “out of control” cyclists”
Sounds fair – even if we look
Sounds fair – even if we look at ‘whataboutery’ with regards to road cyclists attacked by Range Rovers etc.
If they have a network of great cycle routes then we cyclists should adhere to what’s in place – if the rules are clear then surely it’ll make for a better experience for all. If there’s groups of twhats then I’m all for them being taken out of the mix!
Yes to making a clear
Yes to making a clear statement about staying on official routes, and condemning any problems caused by off-route cycling
No to rather hysterical rhetoric about “gangs of hardcore bikers”.
“gangs of hardcore bikers”.
“gangs of hardcore bikers”.
I’ve got a mental image of the Sons of Anarchy on mountain bikes.
IanMK wrote:
I prefer this
hawkins, excuse me I’m just
hawkins, excuse me I’m just having a moment…
Well Nicole Kidman’s perm was
Well Nicole Kidman’s perm was out of control ?
Not to mention nudity and
Not to mention nudity and fornication beside the tracks. Oh, sorry that’s the Forest of Dean of course. The Sons of Anarchy would never be involved in that kind of thing.
Does that mean that horses
Does that mean that horses and peds will also be banned from entering as well?
If there’s groups of twhats
If there’s groups of twhats then I’m all for them being taken out of the mix!
[/quote]
But how? There are twats everywhere. How would they be prevented from entering the forest in the first place – or do they live there?
There’s absolutely no way they can prevent some cyclists from doing what they perceive as the wrong thing. Forestry England have made some reasonable suggestions.
This is borne out of narrow-minded bitterness on the part of the Verderers who have always hated the cyclists. 20 years or more ago they similarly threatened to ban off-road cycling but it never came to pass. They could never enforce it for one thing, and secondly, all the New Forest businesses need the income. The tracks were packed with families on bikes last summer as they couldn’t holiday abroad, it was extremely popular and a bonus for the cafes etc which needed the income.
The verderers need to be targetting the motorists, who in the past couple of months, in two separate incidents, killed firstly 3 donkeys then 4 ponies. It was heart-breaking. Who is causing the most destruction here?
I get that – I suppose we
I get that – I suppose we cyclists sometimes get somewhat territorial about the behaviours of others (and rightly so) but get defensive when something is aimed at us. We want the dickheads on bikes removed as well. But i get the fact that there’s idiotic NIMBYs and people spouting crap rather than providing evidence!
I don’t understand the logic.
I don’t understand the logic. If the problem is cyclists deviating from the prescribed routes, then surely removing those routes will only increase the problem.
Are these the hardcore
Are these the hardcore cyclists who can’t get to the Forest of Dean?
The sheer scale, anger and bitterness of the anti-cycling lobby is hard to credit, and, as we all know, if they see a single cyclist do something wrong, we’re all wrong. I wonder if Anthony Pasmore rides a bike, or owns a vehicle like a Range Rover perhaps, with which he intimidates any cyclists he passes. Sorry, I know I shouldn’t generalise, but I’m getting tired of being everyone and his wife’s whipping boy.
eburtthebike wrote:
They must come from even further afield than Tewkesbury and Cirencester.
‘I saw some cyclists off
‘I saw some cyclists off designated paths once’, becomes “gangs of hardcore bikers determined to ride where they please”. Of course, cyclists should behave responsibly, but here’s hoping that the likely usual anti anecdotes suffering from exaggeration, don’t spoil it for everyone.
dassie wrote:
I rode a route with my wife in the New Forest some years ago and the main problem we had was initially finding the trail as it was poorly signed. A local couple directed us and we were able to find it and have an enjoyable time. Hope the signage has improved since then…
I ride in the forest and on
I ride in the forest and on the tracks at least 3 times a week. I have cycled every single one of those 100 miles several times over. There has never been hardcore gangs of bikers out of control. This is complete and utter bollocks. Even if cyclists were to venture off the beaten track they do far less damage to the off road area than a 500kg horse. These verderers don’t seem to have instructed Forestry England to do something about the gangs of Chelsea tractors racing around the roads and killing their livestock in large numbers, perhaps because as long as the driver is insured they will get money for the dead animal.
Anyone from that part of the
Anyone from that part of the world will tell you that Verderers are, and always have been, cunts.
Plain irrelevant, not fit for
Plain irrelevant, not fit for purpose in the C21st. But then I worry about the Forestry Commission who allow so called Targa rallies across their land.
I don’t know the detail on this, but isn’t “court” a mis-nomer – the court doesn’t own the wooded areas where most of the existing trails run?
More such trails are clearly needed, not less. If it really is a rogue element of MTB-ers, they’re not going to stop, are they?
I expect there are also
I expect there are also worries of
“extreme noise levels of screaming kids and adults, drug taking, drunken and drugged teenage parties, semi-naked sunbathers, and even naked photography.”
from these hardcore bike gangs. (How do I join these gangs?)
hirsute wrote:
Someone’s certainly having a lot of fun there.
Is it the case that the New
Is it the case that the New Forest commoners aren’t that common?
In their 2011 census document asking about the serious problems they face cycling is not mentioned at all. The verbatim comments are also reproduced and again cycling is not mentioned.
For anyone wanting background reading about the Verderers here we go:
Or just look at the photo of the members of the Verderers Court.
Thanks for the link – on a
Thanks for the link – on a quick read, it seems to be the Vereders are a consultee of the Forestry Commission re cycle trails “in the open forest” (does that mean outside the actual wooded areas?)
I think it’s all eyes on the Forestry Commission.
I’d be up for some road group rides at weekends XR style: if we’ve been told no off-road, on road it will have to be.
It does have a look of a UKIP
It does have a look of a UKIP conference about it
Who’s really damaging the
Who’s really damaging the forest https://www.advertiserandtimes.co.uk/commoners-payments
Are there any plans to
Are there any plans to restrict motorised traffic in the New Forest in order to reduce the number of dead and injured animals? Last time I looked it was over 150 a year.
That’s what you would think
That’s what you would think looking at social media.. the facts tell a different story, 58 in 2019. 3 times as many animals released on the forest since 1990 and almost a 3rd of the deaths. Now if they didn’t get paid for each animal they released…
https://www.newforestnpa.gov.uk/app/uploads/2018/07/Animal-accidents-analysis-2019.pdf
Four ponies killed by a Land
Four ponies killed by a Land Rover in a single incident on 1st January this year.
Tragic yes but far from the
Tragic yes but far from the norm, stats from that link I posted
1990 5700 animals depastured, 143 killed
2019 15303 animals depastured, 58 Killed
It’s not the “increasing numbers” and “carnage” that social media and the press would have you believe but that doesn’t make such a good story
Percentage wise just the ponies
2.49% killed in 1990 0.6% in 2019
scoop940 wrote:
What is “depastured”?
Horse meat ?
Horse meat ?
eburtthebike wrote:
Well, I had to look it up myself; that’s three seconds I’ll never get back.
archaic : to denude of pasture by too constant grazing
HarrogateSpa wrote:
Presumably, if that doesn’t stop anytime soon, they’ll be taking the roads away from drivers?
No? Thought not. Twats.
scoop940 wrote:
Whats the logic for animal owners being paid to allow their animals to free roam over the common land?
Is their a belief that some level of animal presence is required to maintain the firest in its current state?
A certain level of animal
A certain level of animal grazing keeps the landscape a certain way, yes. IIRC they managed to wangle a fixed sum of money, shared per head of pony or donkey, possibly even pigs too. Might have been Europe money.
There are now loads of donkeys – cute if your a tourist, but neither use nor ornament otherwise. They make great traffic calmers in the day time. Maybe you have to be in it to understand it, but I never can get beyond “because we always have” as a rationale for commoning.
The problem here is that if
The problem here is that if (as they claim) this is not family groups etc. innocently straying from the paths, but “hardcode bikers determined to ride where they please”, which group do they think will continue riding in the forest if the paths are taken away?
Absolutely right, cyclists should ride, and behave responsibly, but if there are wrongdoers, they should be dealt with as such, rather than immediately going for the nuclear option of removing the paths altogether. If anything that will only make it worse.
Jetmans Dad wrote:
Exactly. Anyone who is knowingly riding where they’re not allowed to will continue to do that. It seems likely that some of the peole who were sticking to the marked routes will either continue to ride those routes or will just ride where ever they feel like since.
England needs a ‘Right to
England needs a ‘Right to Roam’. Everytime I see something that comes from a 13th Century feudal past I think it all needs to be washed away.
https://en.wikiredia.com/wiki/Right_to_roam
Plenty of moaning before the Land Reform Act of 2003 was brought in to law in Scotland. There are no serious voices now that don’t see it as huge success.
I live fairly local to the
I live fairly local to the Forest and try and avoid it if at all possible. The local NIMBYS are some of the worst I’ve come across and are very vocal at making sure you’re not welcome. It’s a shame as the forest has some fantastic riding both on and off road. It’s just a very volcal minority supported by the Verderers who just don’t like people using ‘their’ forest.
Unless they’re in cars from
Unless they’re in cars from Surrey – they’re pretty quiet about that.
thx1138 wrote:
Makes the Forest of Dean seem friendly!
Because it is, of course.
It will just lead to
It will just lead to compulsory mask wearing for hardcore riders.
Username checks out
Username checks out
hawkinspeter wrote:
I shouted and shouted and now I’ve got pony throat; I’m a little hoarse.
We’re gonna build a wall and
We’re gonna build a wall and they’re gonna pay for it.
Verderers are still in the
Verderers are still in the 13th century! Anyway having explored the area plenty they need to ban the weather, it’s doing more damage than anything
It’s irresponsible to use the
It’s irresponsible to use the word “gangs”, with its connotations of drug-dealing and violence, when talking about two or more people riding mountain bikes.
HarrogateSpa wrote:
Maybe we should start referring to the verderers as a gang?
“The direction we were moving
“The direction we were moving in was clear now; without wanting it, without even knowing it, we were becoming a gang.”
Apparently there is a
Apparently there is a consultation open for feedback on what payment scheme the commoners will get:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/new-forest-consultation-november-2020
You can complete if you ‘have an interest in the ownership or management of the New Forest’
Anyone know which option gets them the least public money so I can support it?
By what twisted logic do they
By what twisted logic do they work out that banning something that’s currently allowed will stop something that’s already not allowed?
Because the logic of the
Because the logic of the Verderers is currently at the pre-enlightenment levels of “duck / floating / wood / witch”…?
Surely it is a legal right to
Surely it is a legal right to ride on bridleways. Can they overrule that?