It happened again! - I keep getting told off...
Comments
-
I'm just telling you the rules, I didn't make 'em!0
-
In this day and age if a footpath links two sections of bridleway, then I would think an offroad bike would be a perfectly "usual accompaniment".
Also isn't cycling on a footpath a civil offence that would have to be pursued by the landowner?Northwind wrote: It's like I covered it in superglue and rode it through ebay.0 -
No, and Yes (and the fact that it is a civil matter does not equal "okay to ignore the rules just because you are unlikely to get in much, if any trouble" - (see Kohlberg's Stage 1 moral development - i.e. an infantile level).BorisSpencer wrote:In this day and age if a footpath links two sections of bridleway, then I would think an offroad bike would be a perfectly "usual accompaniment".
Also isn't cycling on a footpath a civil offence that would have to be pursued by the landowner?0 -
-
NO you mustn't ever break any rights of way laws or you will be banned from cycling everywhere for ever.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_tresp ... nder_Scout
and never walk on footpaths where it is not permitted or you will just make it worse for yourself.0 -
Its pretty cheap to try and cover up laziness as some sort of organised civil disobedience. If the mtb fraternity think that all public footpaths should be made rights of way for them, then campaign for it, but in this case it is clear the OP had no such motivation.abductee wrote:NO you mustn't ever break any rights of way laws or you will be banned from cycling everywhere for ever.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_tresp ... nder_Scout
and never walk on footpaths where it is not permitted or you will just make it worse for yourself.
BTW, if there was some such campaign, I would oppose it, footpaths are usually too narrow for them to be shared between walkers and mtb'ers. Its a totally different argument to the right to roam issue.0 -
The whole "unusual accompaniment" is hore-sh*t.
Just because a mountain bike isn't listed as an example under "usual accompaniment" doesn't mean you are NOT allowed to push one along a footpath.
It is not listed under "unusual accompaniment"
In fact, on Welsh governemt websites, it even explicitly states that bikes may be allowed to be ridden, but this is at the landowner's discretion.
Anyway, back to the argument. You were scorned for doing something you know you weren't meant to be doing. MTFU and accept it.0 -
Footpaths are meant to be used for walking on. bridalways are for walkers, cyclists and horses (horses have priority). BOATs, RUPPs are for anything that can use them, mainly trial bikes by the state they get in.
I say fair play for the guys who pulled you,
I came across a big black labrador today on my way down a new trail, I eased up and talked the dog (she was harmless) then had a good chat with her owner, His car was in the garage and was 4/5 miles into a walk. We were in the middle of nowhere sharing the countryside and all was good.
My point is dont ride on footpaths no matter why, a couple of hundred yards pushing on a path may keep many miles of legit bridalays open for future user. landowners who have family that ride can make things awkward if you take the pith.
I also admit that at times i have been lost and been where i shouldnt.fly like a mouse, run like a cushion be the small bookcase!0 -
_Ferret_ wrote:Is it because the summer is ending that people are getting moodier?
I got told off on Sunday for going down a trail, this in itself is nothing new, but this time I got told off by a bunch of bikers who were walking up the other way.
To be fair we are not officially allowed to ride there, it is less than 2m wide and therefore prohibited to bikers, but in my defence it is also just a straight short cut to a bigger trail further on and we could see no-one was on it.
The group had just got to the foot of the trail and one of them stood in the way of my mate and forced him to stop to give him a telling off!
I wanted to say something back but was simply in shock - I thought we were all on the same team here. Yes there are the disagreements over SS and SPDs but we're all bikers right?
My faith in the world has been shaken!
Is this normal?
Rules are meant to be broken ...
Politicians always break them ...0 -
I'm going touse this one on the wife,
Sorry luv I can't go shopping with you, your most defiantly an unusual acompaniment!0 -
-
alfablue wrote:
yes, on a public footpath (which is not the same as a pavement), a bike is not a "usual accompaniment" and therefore cannot even be carried.bigmart wrote:GHill wrote:Old Pedaller wrote:Am I not right in thinking that in Englandshire it is just as illegal to push a bike on a footpath as it is to ride it therefore all parties guilty?
Yes.
Is it legal to carry it on your shoulder down a footpath?
See that's mad in itself, you can push a double pram whilst carrying a BBQ on them but not push a bike, I used to play by the rules but really started to care less now, government telling to people to leave their cars at home and ride bikes, then you come up against this rubbish, then you find they're all at it caning our money on duck houses and the like, dodging income tax on houses we pay for and they make a profit on.
I go where I want now and if people want to have a go so be it, it's just words and the crew you ran into, well wannabe traffic wardens showing a display of assumed power, they need to get a life, just get out there have fun and as long as you don't endanger anyones life just ride.0 -
SPIRO wrote:geordiefreerider wrote:however when I do ride on pavements I always slow/give way for pedestrians, I dont see the problem, but when its pedestrians on black trails I give them the old maverick style fly by and flip the bird !
Yes I already know im a fool before you say anything !!
So if a pedestrian on a pavement flicks you the bird as you pass, from your logic, you would be ok with that?
Its the same but the roles are reversed.
PS your a fool
You may want to read the post again. He said he would flip to the bird to people walking on black trails, not people on the pavement.....Orange Crush 2010
Trek 1.5c0 -
scotto wrote:alfablue wrote:
yes, on a public footpath (which is not the same as a pavement), a bike is not a "usual accompaniment" and therefore cannot even be carried.bigmart wrote:GHill wrote:Old Pedaller wrote:Am I not right in thinking that in Englandshire it is just as illegal to push a bike on a footpath as it is to ride it therefore all parties guilty?
Yes.
Is it legal to carry it on your shoulder down a footpath?
See that's mad in itself, you can push a double pram whilst carrying a BBQ on them but not push a bike, I used to play by the rules but really started to care less now, government telling to people to leave their cars at home and ride bikes, then you come up against this rubbish, then you find they're all at it caning our money on duck houses and the like, dodging income tax on houses we pay for and they make a profit on.
I go where I want now and if people want to have a go so be it, it's just words and the crew you ran into, well wannabe traffic wardens showing a display of assumed power, they need to get a life, just get out there have fun and as long as you don't endanger anyones life just ride.
Not wishing to get into that argument, but the mp's expenses issue is vastly overblown - right or wrong it has nothing to do with the existence of archaic laws passed over the last 100's of years. Its not like laws can be changed at the press of a button - in the scheme of things what would you like parliament to prioritise its time on? This smacks of a n ill-informed (daily mail-esque) rant to justify whatever behaviour you see fit.0 -
alfablue wrote:scotto wrote:alfablue wrote:
yes, on a public footpath (which is not the same as a pavement), a bike is not a "usual accompaniment" and therefore cannot even be carried.bigmart wrote:GHill wrote:Old Pedaller wrote:Am I not right in thinking that in Englandshire it is just as illegal to push a bike on a footpath as it is to ride it therefore all parties guilty?
Yes.
Is it legal to carry it on your shoulder down a footpath?
See that's mad in itself, you can push a double pram whilst carrying a BBQ on them but not push a bike, I used to play by the rules but really started to care less now, government telling to people to leave their cars at home and ride bikes, then you come up against this rubbish, then you find they're all at it caning our money on duck houses and the like, dodging income tax on houses we pay for and they make a profit on.
I go where I want now and if people want to have a go so be it, it's just words and the crew you ran into, well wannabe traffic wardens showing a display of assumed power, they need to get a life, just get out there have fun and as long as you don't endanger anyones life just ride.
Not wishing to get into that argument, but the mp's expenses issue is vastly overblown - right or wrong it has nothing to do with the existence of archaic laws passed over the last 100's of years. Its not like laws can be changed at the press of a button - in the scheme of things what would you like parliament to prioritise its time on? This smacks of a n ill-informed (daily mail-esque) rant to justify whatever behaviour you see fit.
No the mp's expenses scandal is not overblown, all the FACTS are there in black and white, they have been having a laugh at our expense and i for one am not in anyway happy about that.
My point is what is good for the goose is good for the gander, if you can't see that then maybe you should start to read the daily mail, you may learn something.
You have a funny way of not wishing to get into the arguement ( very guardian-esque )0 -
fletch8928 wrote:My point is dont ride on footpaths no matter why,
Seems a needlessly restrictive point of view, some footpaths aren't suitable for bikes, some are, I'd suggest taking each as they come.0 -
Some, a few mp's took the p*ss shamelessly; quite a few claimed for things entirely within the rules, and had the claims checked against the rules, and the rules changed to pander to the sometimes narrow view of the public; many mp's claims were entirely beyond criticism. The changes that are being put in place now will do a great deal to limit the appeal of serving as an mp to the wealthy, to those without families, and to men rather than women - this is not going to be a victory for the public in any sense! It is also overblown when compared to the large scale of tax avoidance and evasion amongst the community, particularly the better off.
The good for the goose point would be fair enough, but I think you are over-extending its reach to mean if a small group of people do something wrong, I can therefore do anything I like! Note also, there have been no laws broken by the vast majority of mp's so I can't see this as justification for breaking the law. A strange sense of morality at work here, I think.
The day I could learn anything of worth from the daily mail will be the day I left my brain in the toilet!0 -
alfablue wrote:Some, a few mp's took the p*ss shamelessly; quite a few claimed for things entirely within the rules, and had the claims checked against the rules, and the rules changed to pander to the sometimes narrow view of the public; many mp's claims were entirely beyond criticism. The changes that are being put in place now will do a great deal to limit the appeal of serving as an mp to the wealthy, to those without families, and to men rather than women - this is not going to be a victory for the public in any sense! It is also overblown when compared to the large scale of tax avoidance and evasion amongst the community, particularly the better off.
The good for the goose point would be fair enough, but I think you are over-extending its reach to mean if a small group of people do something wrong, I can therefore do anything I like! Note also, there have been no laws broken by the vast majority of mp's so I can't see this as justification for breaking the law. A strange sense of morality at work here, I think.
The day I could learn anything of worth from the daily mail will be the day I left my brain in the toilet!
I thought you didn't want to get into the arguement? :-) ;-)
Tax evasion I think you will find is a CRIMINAL OFFENCE which you can go to prison for and a fair few of them are guilty of that beyond reasonable doubt.
Fraud is also a CRIMINAL OFFENCE which you can go to prison for and a fair few of them are guilty of that beyond reasonable doubt.
Riding a bike on a footpath is a CIVIL OFFENCE.
So who has the strange sense of morality now?0 -
You have a strange sense of morality if the argument goes "Bloke A does something wrong, therefore I am allowed to do something wrong" - smacks of infant school playground to me mate!
More sophisticated moral reasoning is based on such ideas as acting in people's best interests, acting in the greater good, doing things because they are inherently right, altruism etc. It does take time to get to these stages however, so you are excused.0 -
0
-
alfablue wrote:You have a strange sense of morality if the argument goes "Bloke A does something wrong, therefore I am allowed to do something wrong" - smacks of infant school playground to me mate!
More sophisticated moral reasoning is based on such ideas as acting in people's best interests, acting in the greater good, doing things because they are inherently right, altruism etc. It does take time to get to these stages however, so you are excused.
errm hello, it's not 'a bloke', it's the government who we have no choice but to pay at least 22% of our wages to every month, people who are paid to look after our best interests, not to commit fraud and tax evasion at our expense, I could go on forever here, point is you don't even have material here for an arguement, you continually wander around the outskirts without entering the main arena.
Smacks of someone who really does not have a clue how to have a debate or someone who does not know what they are talking about.
Anyway I will leave it there, go out have fun and enjoy it, life it too short to worry about these rules anymore. A new era has dawned.0 -
rake wrote:same goes when people walk 4 wide on a marked cycle track not expecting for a bike to come along and only move reluctantly when you have to stop and unclip your feet.im sure they get pleasure from it.point is i dont make a terrible fuss about it, so why do walkers when its reversed.
exactly, walkers are generally pretty uptight.0 -
scotto wrote:
Tax evasion I think you will find is a CRIMINAL OFFENCE which you can go to prison for and a fair few of them are guilty of that beyond reasonable doubt.
Fraud is also a CRIMINAL OFFENCE which you can go to prison for and a fair few of them are guilty of that beyond reasonable doubt.
oooh without trial, evidence examination and a jury of their peers........
burn em! Whenever I see an adult on a bicycle, I believe in the future of the human race.
H.G. Wells.0 -
rake wrote:same goes when people walk 4 wide on a marked cycle track not expecting for a bike to come along and only move reluctantly when you have to stop and unclip your feet.im sure they get pleasure from it.point is i dont make a terrible fuss about it, so why do walkers when its reversed.
Unfortunately, they're well within their rights - cyclists are supposed to give way to peds on a cycle track.0 -
0
-
I think violence is the answer, i'm too dumb for clever arguments and politics but i.m really strong and have a wicked right hook so violence for me
Yes i'm tawt i already know.GENESIS CORE 200 -
rake wrote:i didnt know that. even when there is aline with a picture of a ped and bike. ill try not to be so sour with them but itl be hard.
It seems stupid to me, especially as cyclists cannot use the adjoining ped lane (counts as riding on the pavement) - but that's what the wording suggests.0 -
The Civil law dictates that i have no legal right to be there, well so be it, i will continue to ride trails i feel are well within my rights as a responsible rider, pretty much the way it is in Scotland, with a right to roam anywhere as long as you are causing no damage and riding responsibly. Long live socialism0
-
sarkmeister wrote:SPIRO wrote:geordiefreerider wrote:however when I do ride on pavements I always slow/give way for pedestrians, I dont see the problem, but when its pedestrians on black trails I give them the old maverick style fly by and flip the bird !
Yes I already know im a fool before you say anything !!
So if a pedestrian on a pavement flicks you the bird as you pass, from your logic, you would be ok with that? Its the same but the roles are reversed.
PS your a fool
You may want to read the post again. He said he would flip to the bird to people walking on black trails, not people on the pavement.....
You may want to read it again, i am saying him flicking the bird to a walker on a trail is the same as a pedestrian flicking him the bird on the pavement 0
