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

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.

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?

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.

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.

'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.

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.

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.

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 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 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

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)

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?

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.

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.

How about considerably less harmful?

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.

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.

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.

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.

“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'.