Letter: Route changes in New Forest will not mean thousands more cyclists

I have read some of the comments about the proposed increases to the current cycle network in the New Forest and wonder how many people are actually looking at them in detail in order to make a fair judgement of the fundamental principle. I would encourage anyone interested to look at the map on the verderers’ website plus the content of the associated presentments.

I’ve seen comments about ‘30 new routes’ and ‘unending demand for recreation’ along with suggestions that the reasons for more tracks are based on ‘greedy profit’ motives whereas the reality is that the routes are either a couple of km long or just a few hundred metres to link certain tracks together that are already being used by walkers, horse riders and some cyclists as they represent logical links from one part of the Forest to another. Most don’t need extra work and those that do will be for the benefit of all forest users and hopefully wean people off using less suitable areas by providing a better alternative.

Please don’t fall into the trap of thinking that thousands more cyclists are going to descend on the New Forest due to these extra links or that a bunch of greedy cycle shop owners or extreme mountain bikers are rubbing their hands in glee at the prospect of these proposals being accepted. Please read between the lines of inflammatory remarks about cyclists. The only way to manage cycling in the New Forest is to have a safer, more logical network that legitimises the routes which can then be advocated and policed. People seeking enjoyment in the New Forest on bikes are generally responsible and want guidance on where they should or shouldn’t cycle.

This proposal is mostly aimed at the local population who are lucky enough to regularly access this wonderful area rather than an attempt to increase cycling exponentially. From my experience, day visitors feel they have sufficient choice of cycling tracks, do not venture far and prefer to stick to well maintained Forest tracks. The problem we need to address is people cycling off the permitted network who don’t understand the restrictions or those who make personal route choices based on wanting to avoid the roads or choosing a track to get from A to B that they see other Forest users following.

Please have a good look at this proposal yourself (https://bit.ly/3CkeZRf) and make your views known to the verderers by December when you are sure you have separated fact from fiction.

Ross Kempson

Cyclexperience, Brockenhurst