Could Epping Forest be the new New Forest?

Dunno about this. I've been a passionate cyclist for over fifty years and I've done my share of lobbying and protesting in our cause.
But I love walking too, and do it quite a bit. And there are places that are not improved by the presence of cyclists. They do take away something from quiet, contemplative walks. They do creep up on you. They give you another hazard to be aware of.
On balance I'm not averse to keeping some areas for pedestrians and horse-riders. There's a lot of countryside out there.

Cyclist v deer - deer tends to win. Deer are not endangered. A horse and its rider is a far bigger danger to any other vistitor, largely because a person is sat upon a dumb prey animal that can flip out at any moment and weighs a ton.

What about all the dog-walkers whose dogs crap everywhere - surely that's more of an "annoyance and inconvenience" to people who tread in it or whose kids get ill from it, than a cyclist riding by??

A few observations from a regular user of the Forest, but as a walker not on my bike.
Number of cyclists in the Forest has risen dramatically in past 15 years.
One consequence is that in winter lots of paths have become impassable for walkers -too churned up by wheels.
Mostly cyclists v.considerate of other users, in my case walking with small kids.
Bikes and horse would only mix on the main surfaced forest tracks. Currently horses can't go off the bridleways whereas bikes can, and do, go everywhere.
Restricting bikes to the bridlways would effectively end cycling in the forest - not enough thrills.

Still occasionally see cyclists bombing round the protected areas notably the two ancient encampments and the Loughton Brook area. Suspect that this is the behaviour most likely to lead to a ban. Q

Wildlife is an issue. The deer are probably ok, and don't think there's much of a grey squirrel lobby. But lots of stuff that's harder to see, like the south facing banks where you can spot lizards in the early morning sun and, if very lucky, adders too, and the saplings which get churned up.

Finally, whatever they're other faults (lack of democratic accountability anyone?) the City of London have done a good job of protecting the Forest lands. Much safer with them than a normal cash strapped LA

1st comment from the Camden new journal, is this what corp of London want for Epping?

I find it ironic that the Heath police force drive all over the Heath in their stinking cars to enforce cycling restrictions. No complaints about them. Added to this we have the military training mobs invading the Heath and turning it into a boot camp. No fines or complaints about them either. Lone woman cyclist? Fine her till the pips squeak.

And the huge irony that Epping Forest is criss-crossed with a multitude of car filled roads but god forbid you should want to cycle there.

I didn't realise they owned the forest, I had always assumed that it was 'public' land. Shows how wrong you can be. In a way I guess its lucky they haven't seen the cash making possibilities and build apartments on it already. having read parts of the consultation it does seem to have a focus on revenue generation.

Hampstead Heath...hmmm

Corp of London held a public consultation some years back on increasing legal cycle routes on the Heath, widespread support and then ignored the outcome. And aggressively pursued anyone cycling on the Heath, especially kids riding mountain bikes in the remote Spaniards Woods (Sandy Heath) at the top of the Heath.

Nice to see the authorities targeting elderly ladies cycling in the rain when no one is around, and received hefty fine and court summons!

http://www.camdennewjournal.com/heathcyclist

"But she said that in wet weather and with nobody about, she felt desperate and mounted her bike: “Earlier this year, it was raining, and I reached the top of the mound, got on my bike and just slowly cruised down the hill. The path was completely deserted. I was given a court summons and fined £220 on the spot – I could hardly believe it. Why are the Heath Constabulary entitled to take people to court and waste the court’s time? It seems crazy.”

A Forest byelaw, which carries up to a £200 fine, prohibits cycling "to the danger, injury, annoyance or inconvenience of the public".

That's a f**king wide ranging byelaw there...'annoyance or inconvenience' for some people just seeing or even imagining someone on a bike is an annoyance and inconvenience*. That needs to be clarified and also - are cyclists not 'the public' too?

*see the comments on any Daily hate story where a bike or cyclist is involved

Hang on. Why is the City of London Corp involved in Epping Forest? Epping forest is not, last time I looked, anywhere near the City it is in outlying boroughs like Waltham Forest and out into Essex...

Anyway, I don't understand why they feel the need to restrict cycling like that - the better option would be to dedicate certain parts to cycling, you know provision rather than restriction. Also, having spent a lot of time there as a kid on my bike, the only trouble I ever had in epping forest was being attacked by dogs (3 times) and being beaten up and robbed. Perhaps what they should actually do, is ban dogs and people who aren't on bikes. That would solve all the problems

anti-cycling campaigners.

Like the National Front for transport, bigoted idiots.

The City of London Corp is a ridiculous institution that's about a century overdue for major democratic reform.

What is essentially a private company is running a major part of our city with the authority of a local council, and no one seems to care. Yet two bearded hipsters selling overpriced bowls of sugar puffs, had people out in the streets with pitchforks!

I must be getting old, I don't understand kids today