Does the inclusion of mountain bikers also mean that Peak District National Park will soon allow dirt bikers, motorcyclists and ATVers into the park? Motorized off-road sports are becoming more popular with many folk. Don't let mountain bikers in unless you open the door for dirt bikers, too. After all you stated:
“Mountain bikers can sometimes feel they aren’t welcome because some say they cause erosion and come into conflict with other users. But we all have an impact on the countryside and we’ve got to respect each other’s pastimes.", after all.

So I expect that you will also respect motorized off-road sports. Otherwise you are being insincere with your statement about respecting each other's pastimes. Do you think I am jesting? If you won't let motorsports in, why would you let mountain bikers in? It is a bit unfair, isn't it?

if you have bought an off road bike you should use it on your own land. simples

before you ask i've a crm

"If you won't let motorsports in, why would you let mountain bikers in? It is a bit unfair, isn't it?" - What a rediculous statement! Mountainbikes and dirt bikes are completly different. Some sports have more impact that others - dirt bikes, ATVs and 4x4s ruin the tracks for all other users. Mountain bikes leave nothing but tyre marks. Furthermore it is illegal for motorised vehicles to use bridle ways and most byways. Man up and get a mountain bike, we are much faster that you on the downhill anyway!

Why do want to be 'fast' on the downhill?

I don't know if you are trying to be funny Ian, but that makes no sense to me. Do you preference to be slow? Faster is always better, it's for the thrill.

Michael - the 'tyre marks' left by bikes are often long skid marks that create ruts, caused by heavy braking. The 'thrill' you talk about is often at the expense of the path.

The modern mountain biker, it should be remembered, is a relative new kid on the hill.

That said, due consideration should be given to those mountaineer/cyclists active in the years before and after WW2. The Dundee crowd, for example, would head up to Clova on a Saturday afternoon, stay in the Youth Hostel. Then next day would climb over the Mounth Path to Loch Muick before the long cycle back to Dundee and not a vehicle or chairlift in sight.

As for motor bikes - the 'Scottish Six Day Trials' have taken place in Lochaber since the 1920s and are very popular around Fort William. They were using those west highland hill tracks when walkers were rarely seen and long before cyclists appeared.

A simple piece of advice for all. If you would like to walk where there are no bikes, horses, trailbikes, landrovers etc then stick to footpaths, leave the bridleways, byways and UCR's to others legally entitled to use them. Likewise, other users stick to routes where you have access rights and aren't breaking the law. Result, everyone's happy.......
There's plenty of space and routes for all in our National Parks, we should be promoting resposible access for all not fighting amongst each other.
Yes I own a mountainbike, I have a land rover, oh, and I also have a pair of feet that managed to climb all the 3000ft+ hills on the mainland without the use of either of the former.

Bicycles should not be allowed in any natural area. They are inanimate objects and have no rights. There is also no right to mountain bike. That was settled in federal court in 1996: http://mjvande.nfshost.com/mtb10.htm . It's dishonest of mountain bikers to say that they don't have access to trails closed to bikes. They have EXACTLY the same access as everyone else -- ON FOOT! Why isn't that good enough for mountain bikers? They are all capable of walking....

A favorite myth of mountain bikers is that mountain biking is no more harmful to wildlife, people, and the environment than hiking, and that science supports that view. Of course, it's not true. To settle the matter once and for all, I read all of the research they cited, and wrote a review of the research on mountain biking impacts (see http://mjvande.nfshost.com/scb7.htm ). I found that of the seven studies they cited, (1) all were written by mountain bikers, and (2) in every case, the authors misinterpreted their own data, in order to come to the conclusion that they favored. They also studiously avoided mentioning another scientific study (Wisdom et al) which did not favor mountain biking, and came to the opposite conclusions.

Those were all experimental studies. Two other studies (by White et al and by Jeff Marion) used a survey design, which is inherently incapable of answering that question (comparing hiking with mountain biking). I only mention them because mountain bikers often cite them, but scientifically, they are worthless.

Mountain biking accelerates erosion, creates V-shaped ruts, kills small animals and plants on and next to the trail, drives wildlife and other trail users out of the area, and, worst of all, teaches kids that the rough treatment of nature is okay (it's NOT!). What's good about THAT?

To see exactly what harm mountain biking does to the land, watch this 5-minute video: http://vimeo.com/48784297.

For more information: http://mjvande.nfshost.com/mtbfaq.htm .

Park rangers are supposed to be role models. Practicing a destructive activity like mountain biking sends exactly the wrong message. You should find out what the impacts are, before embarking on a dangerous, destructive sport like mountain biking.

Mike, sounds like if you have your way, all we'll be able to achieve in the countryside is ramble.........naked. My crampons and ice axes are inanaimate objects, but I wouldn't consider tackling a ridge in winter without them. I'm sure they also contribute to increased erosion on occasion. Also what about trekking poles? All those little holes in the surface of a path allowing water ingress and facilitating increased rates of erosion.
When you ramble, how do you access the start of your route? Do you drive perhaps? What about all the poor little creatures that perish under the wheels of cars on country lanes, should we ban any sort of access beyond town limits unless it's on (bare) foot with nothing but a hemp sack for protection from the weather? Perhaps we could go back to the early days of motoring and have a gentleman with a red flag walk in front of our cars, this would serve two purposes, warn everyone a vehicle was approaching and give all except the slowest fauna time to escape from being trapped under the the wheels of a metallic monster.
When you quote federal court I'm assuming the case was heard in America, the country where federal laws allow civilians to own firearms capable of discharging 100 rounds a second. Priorites........!! I'd suggest the dangerous and destructive aspect of this discussion is people with attitudes like yours.

Given it's popularity I'd say mountain biking is here to stay. Get over it.

I wonder why mountain biking often gets a poor press - other than when it's self promoting of course.