Footpaths
Comments
-
To be honest, i wouldn't imagine that "people on bikes" (ie people on argos specials out for a sunday ride or your local chavs rather than cyclists) would know that you're not technically allowed on footpaths.alfablue wrote:An assumption I do believe is that a large number of "people on bikes" would be likely to show little or no care or respect to walkers on footpaths if it were a free for all.
I do think it's a daft rule though, we should all be able to enjoy the countryside, bikes don't cause any more erosion than walkers if you ride sensibly. As for dangerous footpaths, i would hope that most people would have enough sense to get off and carry their bikes at places that would otherwise not be negotiable.0 -
I've not ridden Crib Goch, due to the extreme winds up there. One wheel wrong and it's common sense.alfablue wrote:As for the dangerous footpaths, how do you fancy cycling Crib Goch? I expect you've done it frequently! Look, you brilliant riders may be fine on cliff edge paths, A LOT of people would not be.
However, I didn't need anyone to tell me not to ride there, I used my common sense (a commodity lots of people seem to be lacking in this day and age).
Same as when I ride down a cycle path, and come across a gate. I don't immediately assume I can bunnyhop the farm gates just because "I'm allowed to ride here" because I'm not an idiot.0 -
You've not ridden this? You're soft you are!0 -
right.
Tell you what, let's meet up there tomorrow, I'll walk and take the camera, and I'll photograph you doing it then.0 -
er, I think I'll take the camera . . .you are the far better rider.0
-
I'm not bloody riding it.
I do want to give the PYG track a go though. And if I get up early enough tomorrow, I might have somewhere stupid to try and ride. Will take the camera
0 -
I did the Ranger, don't think I would want to try the pyg though.0
-
I don't get the 'Oooh don't ride on public footpaths' thing it is not in any sense of the law wrong unless it is specificaly prohibited by the landowner or local bylaw, the fact is it is a protected right of way for pedestrians which cannot be completely obstructed and has to be maintained to a certain width etc, though there are access issues concerning the disability discriminaltion act but that is another matter. The problem like I said before is that bicycles are lumped together with horses and even horse drawn carrages as far as having protected rights, but there is a provision in law that if a path is used for 30 year without issue then a public right of way can be claimed, so use stuff and don't cause an issue 8) 8)-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
Mongoose Teocali
Giant STP0
Why are MTB economics; spend twice as much as you intended, but only half as much as you wish you could afford? :roll:0 -
bails87 wrote:alfablue wrote:No I don't really think its excessive. There's plenty for us to ride on.
Not anywhere around here there isn't
I think this is a big problem. When i go out for a ride i usually start riding down a bridleway, but then they just stop and i have no way to link to other bits of trail other than footpaths. I try to avoid footpaths that look used by walkers but any that i have met have not confronted me.
If more bridleways were introduced there would be less of a need for us to use the footpaths, meaning more balance for use for different people.
I also find the classification of the tracks around here odd. I regularly ride down a bridleway that is no wider than my handlebars, and this is legal. Yet i am not able to ride down a footpath that easily leaves room for me to move out of the way of other users.
Finally, i would be really interested to hear how my bike contributes to erosion of land more than a walker does?0 -
One of the foot paths i regulary use starts of as a road which is marked with a national speed limit sign, it is a sealed surface about the width of a van,after 3/4 of a mile it turns to gravel/earth mix, used by farm vehicles, and then back to a road, most of which is used by local residents for access to a few houses on route, and a few underground water reservoirs, its marked as a foot path,technically i shouldnt ride it,but being as it used by all types of vehilces for access, deliveries ect ,then they must be breaking the law to,so dont see why i should not ride it.
Just like a foot path through a golf course over the way that has golf buggys crossing it,never had a problem there mind0 -
Alex, if you never lock your wheels or skid then I am sure you are as delicate as a feather. As the skill level of forum members is at such a high level then the erosion issue is obviously not a problem. Strange, our local trails require a lot of tlc to fill ruts and potholes - obviously cr*p riders round here :roll:0
-
Just a couple of points, the reason bridleway just stop or turn into footpaths is because of different parish councils as they were the people who classified them. As for width of bridlways Schedule 12A to Highways Act 1980 when it is not a field edge then it is 2 metres, a footpath is 1 metre so even that should be wider than your handlebars, and to be fair this could be a reason why some ROWs are footpaths due to widths. I am currently reading through the relevant Acts in law and will try to come up with clearer information. But as yet have not found anything about not riding a bicycle on a 'public footpath' (not footway which is at the side of the road and must not be ridden on)-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
Mongoose Teocali
Giant STP0
Why are MTB economics; spend twice as much as you intended, but only half as much as you wish you could afford? :roll:0 -
alfablue wrote:Alex, if you never lock your wheels or skid then I am sure you are as delicate as a feather. As the skill level of forum members is at such a high level then the erosion issue is obviously not a problem. Strange, our local trails require a lot of tlc to fill ruts and potholes - obviously cr*p riders round here :roll:
I don't pretend to have a high level of skill, and as much as i value your sarcasm i disagree. There is a massive difference between trails that have a relatively high level of traffic compared to the standard bridleway that is occasionally used. Furthermore, on trails at the local woods where i know there will be no walkers i am liable to skid, this is because im riding much more on edge than if i just on a leisurely ride through the country side where i control my speed because, as are most people, i am aware of other users.
I will agree that i contribute to a minimal level of erosion, but as i said earlier i do not believe this is more than walkers will cause along the same tracks.0 -
alexj2233 wrote:alfablue wrote:I will agree that i contribute to a minimal level of erosion, but as i said earlier i do not believe this is more than walkers will cause along the same tracks.
It is probably a lot less as a bicycles tyres are in constant contack and have the load is spread over two points of contact whereas foot contact is the full weigh of the person on a single contact point which impacts the ground, it also lacks the lateral cushioning of a pnematic tyre. This why I am against footpaths being made bridalways because horse and horse drawn traffic is a nightmare on the surface, I think a better way would be to allow bicycles on footpaths unless there are good grounds for prohibition and I mean by bylaw not the landowner.-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
Mongoose Teocali
Giant STP0
Why are MTB economics; spend twice as much as you intended, but only half as much as you wish you could afford? :roll:0 -
To be honest, half of the time I couldn't tell you what is a footpath, bridleway, or whatever. Half the stuff I ride wouldn't have any classification whatsoever. And I don't see why you should not be allowed to ride anywhere you like, unless you're wandering into someone's back garden, of course. I don't see it as any different to walking. My consideration towards others is the same regardless of how I choose to transport myself.0
-
captainfly wrote:It is probably a lot less as a bicycles tyres are in constant contack and have the load is spread over two points of contact whereas foot contact is the full weigh of the person on a single contact point which impacts the ground, it also lacks the lateral cushioning of a pnematic tyre. This why I am against footpaths being made bridalways because horse and horse drawn traffic is a nightmare on the surface, I think a better way would be to allow bicycles on footpaths unless there are good grounds for prohibition and I mean by bylaw not the landowner.
^ This.0 -
ive been asked by a couple of ppl who ride our local loop about the laws,as it takes in a couple of footpaths,ive looked on the internet for the laws about this,and found this......
its complicated,'cycling on footpaths' actually relates to the riding of cycles on a 'footway set aside for the use of pedestrians' which runs alongside a road.the only way you can get a law suit for riding on a footpath is by the land owner as you would be committing trespass,and also if they can say you are damaging there land,the landowner could bring a case under civil law against you if he/she so chose.........i also read about it on the internet sumwhere that horse riders can use footpaths away from roads as well,so depending on what you read yes you are or no youre not breaking any law......i suppose at the end of the day,how does a landowner know youre name and address you are giving him/her is real,and it comes down to those few mbr who dont give walkers the right of way on footpaths who give us all a bad name.....and in now way am i saying it is ok to ride footpaths if you are taken for a civil lawsuit 0 -
To be honest, half of the time I couldn't tell you what is a footpath, bridleway, or whatever. Half the stuff I ride wouldn't have any classification whatsoever. And I don't see why you should not be allowed to ride anywhere you like, unless you're wandering into someone's back garden, of course.
That's exactly how it works in Scotland. I fail to see why the rest of the world should be any different.http://www.strathspey.co.uk - Quality Binoculars at a Sensible Price.
Specialized Roubaix SL3 Expert 2012, Cannondale CAAD5,
Marin Mount Vision (1997), Edinburgh Country tourer, 3 cats!0 -
alfablue
That pic of the rocky stuff doesn't demonstrate anything. If that's a footpath then I'd be within my rights to take my barely mobile grandparents and 3 year old kids up there, along with a newborn baby in a pram. Just because it would be 'within my rights' doesn't stop it being a bit of a stupid thing to do.
As for local trails needing maintenance, have you seen how impassable some footpaths get (just from walkers) as soon as there's a bit of rain? There's a section of canal towpath near me that's under about a foot of smelly mud and water for 10 or 11 months of the year. Paths need maintaining because they're used, not because they're used by bikes. Obviously a trail centre needs more maintenance, but the average footpath won't ever have anything approaching that level of traffic.
altern_8
Footpaths are for walkers, bridleways are for horses, cyclists and walkers. Bikes aren't expressly forbidden on footpaths, but only walkers and 'reasonable accompaniment' are allowed. So even if a bike is seen as 'reasonable', the law suggests you'd only be able to walk it, rather than ride it.
captainfly
I agree, I think letting bikes use footpaths rather than open access for everything is a better way of doing things. At least when you ocme across steps, or a stile on a bike, you can get off and carry the bike across/over. You can't really do that with a horse
Plus the potential for harm on a narrow footpath, with a horse kicking out a hoof at a child that's startled it, is much higher compared to a bike.0 -
Hmm, not sure about that. I know I've often gone mental and knocked people out becuase they startled me. I thought it was one of those pesky ninjas.bails87 wrote:Plus the potential for harm on a narrow footpath, with a horse kicking out a hoof at a child that's startled it, is much higher compared to a bike. 0 -
yeehaamcgee wrote:
Hmm, not sure about that. I know I've often gone mental and knocked people out becuase they startled me. I thought it was one of those pesky ninjas.bails87 wrote:Plus the potential for harm on a narrow footpath, with a horse kicking out a hoof at a child that's startled it, is much higher compared to a bike.
BOO!
*ducks*0 -
but you're a mouse, not a ninja, I can clearly see that. 0
-
yeehaamcgee wrote:but you're a mouse, not a ninja, I can clearly see that.
Maybe I'm just a really good ninja.....
I only said it because the image in my head of you reading the word "boo", jumping out of your chair and then instinctively putting your fist through the computer screen was quite entertaining. 0 -
well, I've got (had) two very large monitors, so I still have one functioning one. :oops:
DAMN you! 0 -
We certainly do. According the the CTC's Vote Bike campaign, the Lib Dems promised a review of countryside access in their manifesto, and Cameron rides a bike (albeit on the road in London when he hasn't had it nicked) so maybe now is a good time.unixnerd wrote:One thing that occurs to me is that those south of the border really need to campaign for a right to roam of the type we have in Scotland.
If everyone followed the idea of "leave no trace" there wouldn't be a problem - people claim not to be causing damage but when you follow them they are spinning wheels up hills and locking up when braking which churns up the path just as well as any horse.
Similarly going off the footpath and riding at sheep with lambs isn't going to win mountain bikers any friends.0 -
got question:
where i live (london north enfield) we have a few green areas, but offically there isnt any footpaths just mixed "walkways" and dirt areas.
forty hall,hilly fields all some say are footpaths but the only way to check this is via ordanance map, and from the looks it changes very offen.
how do you even know if you on a footpath half the time considering a lot of the footpaths around dont have signs.
i think the biggest issue is the terrible signage around paths and woods, if i see a sign with"DO NOT CYCLE" ect i wont, that simple.
but a sign with " NO RIDING HORSES ALLOWED" does this include us then? as it or isnt telling you if it bridleway or turning into footpath.
as i said id love to know anyone who can help clear this up.,...is Forty Hall, Hilly Fields,Whitewebs allowed to cycle around? (kids do it all the time but is it allowed, as signs are poor)????
heres map of forty hall and whitewebs area you tell me please....
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&q=f ... d=0CA4Q_AU
:?:London2Brighton Challange 100k!
http://www.justgiving.com/broxbourne-runners0 -
blablablacksheep wrote:got question:
where i live (london north enfield) we have a few green areas, but offically there isnt any footpaths just mixed "walkways" and dirt areas.
forty hall,hilly fields all some say are footpaths but the only way to check this is via ordanance map, and from the looks it changes very offen.
how do you even know if you on a footpath half the time considering a lot of the footpaths around dont have signs.
i think the biggest issue is the terrible signage around paths and woods, if i see a sign with"DO NOT CYCLE" ect i wont, that simple.
but a sign with " NO RIDING HORSES ALLOWED" does this include us then? as it or isnt telling you if it bridleway or turning into footpath.
as i said id love to know anyone who can help clear this up.,...is Forty Hall, Hilly Fields,Whitewebs allowed to cycle around? (kids do it all the time but is it allowed, as signs are poor)????
heres map of forty hall and whitewebs area you tell me please....
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&q=f ... d=0CA4Q_AU
:?:
If there are no sign posts stating 'Public Footpath', or no 'No Cycling' signage, I would say it's fair game to ride round.
If someone complains to you, just be polite and say you hadn't spotted any signs to the contrary, if they're helpful maybe they'll point them out :-)Earn Cashback @ Wiggle, CRC, Evans, AW Cycles, Alpine Bikes, ProBikeKit, Cycles UK :
http://www.topcashback.co.uk/ref/stewartmead0 -
glauciaregina9 wrote:blablablacksheep wrote:got question:
where i live (london north enfield) we have a few green areas, but offically there isnt any footpaths just mixed "walkways" and dirt areas.
forty hall,hilly fields all some say are footpaths but the only way to check this is via ordanance map, and from the looks it changes very offen.
how do you even know if you on a footpath half the time considering a lot of the footpaths around dont have signs.
i think the biggest issue is the terrible signage around paths and woods, if i see a sign with"DO NOT CYCLE" ect i wont, that simple.
but a sign with " NO RIDING HORSES ALLOWED" does this include us then? as it or isnt telling you if it bridleway or turning into footpath.
as i said id love to know anyone who can help clear this up.,...is Forty Hall, Hilly Fields,Whitewebs allowed to cycle around? (kids do it all the time but is it allowed, as signs are poor)????
heres map of forty hall and whitewebs area you tell me please....
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&q=f ... d=0CA4Q_AU
:?:
If there are no sign posts stating 'Public Footpath', or no 'No Cycling' signage, I would say it's fair game to ride round.
If someone complains to you, just be polite and say you hadn't spotted any signs to the contrary, if they're helpful maybe they'll point them out :-)
Or look at an OS Map and actually find out. 0 -
i was looking but tbh the signs dont say much and everyone seems to cycle them anyhow,
so like other guy said unless i see sign with dont cycle i going to cycle on it tbh as it the only semi decent area to cycle around. 8)
epping forest is about a 30 min car away but last time i went there was crazy complex and pretty hard to make heads or tails of a route sinse no marked routes or way to use a OS map at all possible to bike around .guess you need a guide for it.London2Brighton Challange 100k!
http://www.justgiving.com/broxbourne-runners0
