Privateer 4: cheeky trails

Privateer 4 will be in the shops shortly. i've already got my copy and, despite being a cynical old hack in bike mag terms (having worked on them for over 15 years now), I think it's amazing. If you haven't already seen it, do track a copy down (or, better still, subscribe). It's almost certainly like nothing you've seen before and full of good stuff.

it even smells good (I'm not making that up, by the way).

The new issue also has my first full-blown Privateer words-and-pictures feature, called Cheeky Trails. It's the culmination of a project I actually began about three years ago for another (now defunct) mountain bike mag, looking at trail access laws and restrictions in the UK. Yeah, I know, that sounds dull. It isn't, I promise. And, of course, because it's something that sounds dull it presented me with a fascinating conundrum, photographically speaking. To wit, what, precisely, should I photography to illustrate it?

In the end I took a two-pronged approach. Since I was talking to three experts on UK trail access, I spent some time photographing them. In mono, because Privateer gives me that kind of flexbility.

But because trails - specifically, illegal trails - are the feature's raison d'etre, we decided there should be some pictures of those, too. Which begs the question: how to photograph a trail... beautifully? In the end I treated it a bit like a landscape job, although I managed to incorporate a (blurry) rider in a few of the pics. Slowing down to look in detail at the landscape made me appreciate it all the more, though I resisted the urge to put the camera on a tripod (I've always found they restrict me too much, because I like to be able to move around without having to reset everything). I got rather good at hand-holding 1/8 sec shutter speeds, in fact. And I processed the resulting images in different ways, to suit the mood, location and lighting.

It was fun. It's good to try different things sometime. Keeps it all fresh.

Here are a few of the pics that didn't make the final cut. For the rest, run in all their glory across double page spreads with no copy to detract from them, you'll have to track down a copy of the mag...

Nikon D3, 14-24mm f//2.8, 1/60sec f/8 @ ISO200

Nikon D3, 200mm f/2, 1/800sec f/2 @ ISO200

Nikon D3, 14-24mm f/2.8, 1/10sec f/10 @ ISO200

Comments

[Jon Sparks]

Hi, I'll definitely track down a copy of this. I'll be very interested in what you say about illegal trails.
Did you by any chance see a piece I wrote for Cycle magazine earlier this year about MTBs and erosion?
The general conclusion is that riding (at least XC trail riding) does not overall cause more erosion than walking. More specifically, current Rights of Way system may exacerbate erosion and other problems by confining bikes to bridleways, which may or may not be best suited, while barring access to footpaths which may be better in many ways.

[Seb Rogers]

Hi Jon, I don't subscribe to Cycle, so I'm afraid I missed that. As you're obviously aware, the issue is complicated. From the point of view of land managers erosion isn't the issue; the problem is conflict with other trail users. From that point of view it makes some sense to segregate (for example) bikes and walkers to some extent, even when the segregation is based on definitive maps drawn up in the '50s rather than suitability for purpose.
I've seen this first hand locally, where increasing use by both bikes and walkers has caused erosion issues, but the land managers' response has been to enforce existing ROW laws... which effectively concentrates most users on the most eroded trails and does nothing to address the problem.
One of the issues is that changing a trail's legal status (from, say, footpath to bridleway) is a long, drawn out and very costly process. The best thing to do would be to change existing legislation to make such alterations quicker, easier and less costly. It'd surely be cheaper in the long run than trying to repair the erosion caused by boots, hooves and tyres on over-used honeypot routes.