Letters: New Forest cycle paths need sorting out
SIR – I read with interest your articles and letters regarding off-road cycling issues in the New Forest National Park.
I am a keen cyclist and would prefer to use my bike instead of my car for local trips. I live on the busy A337 and find this road too dangerous to cycle to any of our local villages.
To my knowledge, the only cycle path that goes directly anywhere is one from Lyndhurst to Southampton.
If the gravel track that goes through Pondhead Inclosure were to allow cycles, as it does some cars, it would be possible to reach that cycle path safely.
Cycling is a healthy, non-polluting, environmentally sustainable activity and should be supported and encouraged.
Michael Hammond,
Lyndhurst
*****
SIR – Mr Brown (Letters, 7th October) appears to believe that my opinion about the behaviour of cyclists is based on two pieces of hearsay evidence; the implication, I presume, being that in the two cases to which I referred, the evidence is inadmissible?
Is it being suggested that those incidents either did not take place or the fact of them taking place can be ignored?
Coincidentally, an article appeared in the edition of your paper of 7th October under New Forest Notes, which I hope Mr Brown read – in particular the comment: “Foul mouthed abuse from questioned bikers is now almost routine.”
The fact is that the New Forest is being ruined by the behaviour of such people, and if it is only a minority of cyclists causing the problem, perhaps their fellow cyclists would remind them of the Forest bylaws, as referring the matter to the police would probably not achieve much, judging by the front page headlines in your paper about vigilante shop owners taking on a crimewave (A&T, 7th October).
It has been suggested by Mr Bronsdon (Letters, 7th October) that education is the answer, but I fear that those who need educating may not be susceptible to such a course of action, which leaves a ban on cycling on the open Forest the only way forward.
Ian Davis,
New Milton
*****
SIR – The A&T on 7th October had yet more articles continuing the verderers’ anti-cycling campaign.
One of them was a full-page spread titled “Forest is seeing an ‘epidemic’ of mountain-biking lawlessness”, by Anthony Pasmore. He suggested that “local opinion” has lost patience with Forestry England’s failure to prevent the disruptive activity of some visitors – singling out mountain biking.
Firstly, I don’t imagine that those who attend the Verderers’ Court are properly representative of locals across the New Forest district, but a select sub-set.
The verderers have done all within their power to prevent cycling in the Forest, having cut many of the interconnecting tracks that were designated for cycling by the Forestry Commission in 1996 and have threatened to ban all cycling if their demands are not met.
They have caused the ‘network’ to be fragmented and disconnected. There is no rhyme or reason why some gravel tracks are ‘permitted’ whereas others or not.
It would be far simpler, and easier to communicate, to permit cycling on all vehicle tracks.
It is not surprising that cyclists don’t keep to the ‘permitted’ tracks if they want to avoid ‘going in circles, getting nowhere’.
David Orme,
New Milton
*****
SIR – The fact that there are three letters on the subject published in A&T on 7th October emphasises the concern around cycling in the New Forest.
The letter from Ges Brown of Bransgore raised a wry smile; though doubtless well meaning, he is so wrong in so many ways
It is extremely doubtful that one could find a policeman to report to in the Forest, at any time of the day. If one were lucky enough to spot one he would be travelling in a vehicle rather than on foot.
If one managed to stop him, the immediate response would be that police are instructed to ‘prioritise’ their actions, and advising cyclists would be low on the list.
I cannot imagine for one moment that the officer would deviate from more pressing issues.
Mr Brown then states that he does “often exercise my right to ride any track in the Forest”.
Really! What sort of example does that set for the younger members of our community, let alone the cheerful disregard for laws and regulations put in place to set a standard by which we all ought to obey?
Mr Brown seems to think that because he is a cyclist, like so many other cyclists, he feels that rules and regulations do not apply to him.
He speaks of a “minority” of cyclists who disobey regulations. If he were to stand in Bridge Street, Christchurch, at the Town Bridge traffic lights he would be surrounded by cyclists riding on the pavement, ignoring red traffic lights and generally behaving as though they owned the road.
Those who stop and wait at the traffic lights are few and far between.
Having spent many years attempting to enforce the law, I would remind Mr Brown that it is a citizen’s duty to assist a police officer and, in that respect, advising a law-breaker to desist is well within one’s rights.
Roy Harvey,
Christchurch
