Cycling ban angers Groombridge cyclist
Jessica Thompson
A CYCLING ban introduced by a charity running Broadwater Warren has angered a Groombridge cyclist who has used the area for nearly 10 years.
Melanie Clarkson, of Withyham Road, was shocked to find signs in the forest saying cycling was no longer permitted in the area and has criticised the RSPB for the decision.
Mrs Clarkson said: "There are quite a lot of cyclists in the area and we can't cycle on the Ashdown Forest."
Business Cards From Only £10.95 Delivered www.myprint-247.co.uk
View detailsOur heavyweight cards have FREE UV silk coating, FREE next day delivery & VAT included. Choose from 1000's of pre-designed templates or upload your own artwork. Orders dispatched within 24hrs.
Terms: Visit our site for more products: Business Cards, Compliment Slips, Letterheads, Leaflets, Postcards, Posters & much more. All items are free next day delivery. www.myprint-247.co.uk
Contact: 01858 468192
Valid until: Friday, May 31 2013
She added: "My initial reaction is that it goes against what the Government is encouraging people to be doing – which is getting out more, staying fit and healthy, and using our bicycles."
The RSPB acquired the land in 2007 and has undertaken a 10-year programme to turn the area of conifer plantation, heathland and ancient woodland into a nature reserve.
Communications manager Adrian Thomas said the decision was not an easy one, and the policy was implemented ultimately to protect wildlife in the reserve and benefit pedestrians. Mr Thomas said: "It's a decision that we have really agonised over, but it's unfortunate that some people should come off adversely, although there are going to be some people whom this will really benefit."
He added: "For those few people within the local community who have been using it for cycling, that hasn't been an easy decision to take."
The spokesman explained that Broadwater Warren is viewed by the RSPB as having potential to be "one of the most special places for wildlife in the South East". But Mrs Clarkson has also hit out at the charity's decision to clear part of the wood to make room for a car park, saying it contradicts the reasons given to her by the RSPB for the cycling ban – to protect wildlife in the vicinity.
Before the RSPB took over, the land had permitted pedestrian access with no rights of way for cyclists, Mr Thomas said: "If we hadn't acquired the site it's likely that it would have been sold in chunks privately and that access would have been lost completely."
In restoring the area and making it a nature reserve the RSPB will create nature trails to allow guests to walk around the area, leaving some parts undisturbed for the benefit of wildlife.
The charity said that if cyclists were allowed to use the area they would have to create separate cycle routes which is difficult as the reserve is quite small. Mr Thomas said: "For most people enjoying the wildlife is done on foot. Pedestrians contacted us complaining that they had been intimidated by cyclists so we have a really complex situation."
Comments
by Tim, Harcrow
Sunday, June 28 2009, 1:08PM
“Why don't cyclists just park their bikes and enjoy the nature reserve on foot and get plenty of exercise that way.
You can see a lot more nature that way and it will avoid any potential pedestrian-cyclist conflict.”
by Dave, Walton
Saturday, June 06 2009, 7:28PM
“Why don't cyclists cycle to the reserve , park their bikes and walk around the reserve . Walking will give them sufficient exercise and will allow them to catch views of the wildlife they might otherwise miss .”
by Mike, Crowborough
Saturday, May 30 2009, 11:17AM
“The RSPB's concerns are discriminatory and not based upon evidence or speaking with interest groups. They dont care about doinf that, and have made their decision based upon ignorance and misinformation. I ride there regularly and always find other users polite and courteous. We can all get along and find a way to coexist. Alot of MTB routes exist already, and when using these you never see a walker or any other living soul!!
Its really just lunancy , political correctness, and plain daft.
Its a necessity to ignore and oppose such stupidity, and i intend to.”
by jo, T Wells
Thursday, May 21 2009, 9:09AM
“As the RSPCa commented, very few cyclists use the forest. if the number of cyclists is low how can they create so much damage? It is particularly sad that we can no longer take children in to a safe environment ,off the busy local roads when trying to introduce them to the activity of cycling.”
by Paul, Tunbridge Wells
Sunday, May 17 2009, 1:18AM
“Well done for banning pesky bikes, because they drop rubbish, crap everywhere and chase the birds. Oh no, hang on, that¿s dog walkers and their pets.
Anyway, banning cyclists will at least get kids off their bikes and back in front of their PS2s where the lazy little sods belong. Cycling in the Warren (the last bit of off-road near TW) was just becoming far too much fun.
I for one am pleased as punch(ure) that the policy promotes leaving my carbon neutral bike at home and instead driving my 4x4 to the car parks where I can take a short walk and shout at all the cyclists that will, without a shadow of a doubt, continue to ignore this ridiculous ban.”
by Chris, Langton Green
Saturday, May 16 2009, 3:18PM
“"I think some of the cyclists posting here are missing the point. As previous poster Alan says, the RSPB has a policy of allowing cycling on some of its reserves so it obviously isn¿t anti-cycling."
I think you are missing the point. We are not accusing the RSPB of being anti-cyclist, I want to know why only cycling has been banned, when horse riding causes far more damage.
The RSPB can't seem to give me an answer to that.
"The RSPB is a world class environmental organisation and its experts say that cycling is causing damage to this particular reserve. Why is that so hard to accept?"
It's hard to except without evidence, especially when I have been cycling these woods for some 20 odd years and NEVER seen any damage caused by cyclists.”
by Chris, Langton Green
Saturday, May 16 2009, 2:54PM
“"Unfortunately, bicycles can cause serious damage to unimproved tracks and footpaths"
Really? Do you have any proof of that?
There have been numerous scientific studies showing cycling causes no more damage to paths, etc. than hiking or horse riding does.
I have been cycling these woods for most of my life and have never seen any serious damage to paths caused by cycling.
"There is no reason whatever why cyclists can't arrive by bicycle and then walk through the area, in the same way that motorists would - hence the car park!"
So why isn't horse riding banned then?
"What he is more likely to find is a birdwatcher like myself who likes to enjoy the wildlife (not just birds) and the habitat in which it lives, and who likes to be able to stop and study something, in a nature reserve, without being hit by, or having to take evasive action from, some form of mechanical transport, whether motorised or not."
Cyclists also like the countryside, and the wildlife, which is why they use Broadwater.
How many times have you been hit by a cyclist or had to take evasive action in Broadwater?
I bet you never have and I certainly haven't ever seen it happen in the 20 years or so that I have been using the wood.”
by Lisa, Speldhurst
Saturday, May 16 2009, 2:26PM
“I love cycling off-road to get away from the traffic. However, it seems that I need to go more and more further afield to be able to do so. I cannot understand why riding a bike is more destructive than riding a horse, In addition, having taken my children out on many a walk, they also can be quite destructive when very small, perhaps children who like to run around should be banned as they make alot of noise and might disturb the peace for the birds? It does seem a nonsense. If you're going to make tracks for walkers, can't it also be for cyclists. Perhaps the walkers would do better to use Ashdown Forest where the cyclist cannot go. I was surprised to read that some walkers were intimidated by cyclists, I've never seen or heard any evidence of this as people are usually all enjoying the countryside together.”
by Dave Pettitt, Crowborough
Friday, May 15 2009, 5:36PM
“What a shame, I'm a cyclist who's ridden in these woods for many years and have always loved it for it's unspoilt nature and the fact that all users have got on without a cross word.
I have to smile at Mr Nobbs comments though as he seems a little aggressive. To have nature somewhere does it have to be a reserve? I think probably not.
I'd also like to point out to him that I like to cycle on the road
without being hit by, or having to take evasive action from, some form of motorised transport. Sadly it seems ever more likely this will happen as people are encouraged by organisations like the RSPB to make pointless car journeys. Because really there's no reason whatsoever why motorists can't leave their cars at home and arrive by bicycle instead. Then the RSPB could have just put in some bike racks rather than the eye sore that is the car park!”
by Graeme, Crowborough
Friday, May 15 2009, 12:44PM
“Incase you are not a local, please note that Ashdown forest is but three miles away..
Originally a deer hunting forest in Norman times, Ashdown Forest is now the largest free public access space in the South East. It is a great place for walking and enjoying spectacular views over the Sussex countryside.
The Forest is at the heart of the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and has national and international protection because of its wildlife. Nearly two thirds of its 6500 acres (2500 hectares) are heathland, amounting to 2.5% of the UK's extent of this rare habitat.
And as cycling is also banned here, I will just have to take my seven year old on cycling trips around the roads of Crowborough, or let him join the statisics of obese children sitting in front of the television all day!”