ePetition - mtb access on footpaths

slimboyjim

Not sure if it's on here already but there is an ePetition to allow mtb access on UK footpaths....

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/3508

Sign up to ride anywhere!


James

estampida

I do anyway

there are 2 kinds of people, the quick and the dead

butcher of bakersfield

This is something I feel quite passionately about. I try to stick to Bridleways where I can. But if you have a look on any Ordnance Survery map (the ones around here anyway), you see bridleway...2 miles long...stops...turns into footpath for 1 mile...then Bridleway again.

I swear, some of them I'm sure you can't even get to without walking. You CANNOT get from A to B off road. It's impossible. And ridiculous. Not to mention that many of these adjoining 'footpaths' are actually roads, used by cars, big 4x4s and tractors.

I've listened to the arguments of walkers, and quite frankly, they haven't got one. They're all made up.

So I shall be signing

cuthbertsavage

Signed.

It's a no brainer really.

Only barrier to it you can foresee is that pavements (although expressly excluded in the petition) may be confused with footpaths and no-one should be allowed to ride on them.

mac_man

signed.

SUPERSUTT

signed

BTS6463

signed

BTS6463

signed

Jay dubbleU

Very complicated - a lot of footpaths are Rights of Way which are specifically meant for walkers - it would mean changing the designation for individual RoWs to Bridleways - local councils would have to change designations individually which would cost a fortune. Can't see this happening somehow

bluechair84

signed

bluechair84

(though this thread is already covered in the forum, beaten to it by a few days Slim)

reevie25

Signed

Anonymous

butcher of bakersfield wrote:

I've listened to the arguments of walkers, and quite frankly, they haven't got one. They're all made up.

Unfortunately they also have some prominent and powerful members and friends, including in government. Not to mention some MPs and Judges are walkers/ramblers.

Funny thing is though, the "footpaths" they believe they have exclusive rights to (they actually don't legally) are there through what was an act of deliberate mass trespass.

Anyway, as I said in the other thread, the problem is with this and similar petitions is it doesn't put across a good case for working with other users. Just saying we demand access just annoys people and they'll throw back immediately with the supposed danger to walkers and children from what they believe us to be lunatic irresponsible hooligans who hurtle down trails knocking everyone over. One stupid article like that in the Daily Mail and we have no chance.

It's unbelievable the stuff I've read from the moaners when cycle paths have been proposed sharing footways* and canal paths. Stuff local to me where the paths are huge and wide with plenty of space and yet they make up all kinds of rubbish about not being enough room and they'll get knocked over.


* - footways being pavements etc besides roads. These are not public footpaths and come under specific laws that prevent riding unless otherwise allowed, unlike footpaths where the law only grants walkers a right to them but does not deny a right to bikes.

cooldad

I may be a bit cynical but there are hundreds of pages of random petitions and even more hundreds of rejected petitions.
I think it's mainly a government sop to 'listening to the people.'
Waste of cyberspace IMHO.

bluechair84

But as a modern form of democracy, it is a pleasant dream. I've heard that some of the petitions have been debated, though I agree that this one won't :roll:

manofsteel

done

Tank-slapper

The vast majority of footpaths are not worth riding on - too many stiles. It seems pointless trying to gain permission to do so.

If the petition was for the establishment of free access to open access areas (basically the same as that enjoyed by walkers and people in Scotland) then I would sign it. As it is, I won't.

micksjoiner

not signed ,go where i want here :P
burn it burn it all

butcher of bakersfield

Jay dubbleU wrote:

Very complicated - a lot of footpaths are Rights of Way which are specifically meant for walkers - it would mean changing the designation for individual RoWs to Bridleways - local councils would have to change designations individually which would cost a fortune. Can't see this happening somehow

That is a problem. The only way to do is to allow cycling on all public footpaths. Otherwise you're gonna be waiting 50 years...

deadkenny wrote:

Funny thing is though, the "footpaths" they believe they have exclusive rights to (they actually don't legally) are there through what was an act of deliberate mass trespass.

I done a bit of research into the whole thing and it's all quite interesting. It's not strictly illegal to cycle on a public footpath, but the landowner does have the power to ask you to leave, and if required, use reasonable force...whatever that is? Alternatively they can grant you permission.

Mass trespass though....that's the way to go. I agree, the petition is likely to go nowhere. Doing something is better than doing nothing though. It's a small influence that carries on...and with any luck, grows. And eventually you have big action, big opinions...and change.

cooldad

Mass trespass? Yeah right.

paul.skibum

I signed it - no harm and I agree that footpaths should be opened up to bikes - for the most part those that actually present the opportunity for good riding will be used those filled with stiles and so on will not be.

I have ridden a few footpaths either because I didnt realise or got lost and had to break the law to get to where I was supposed to be - some are good some less so.

I dont see that there is any need to re classify various paths - just open them all up and as I say if they are good to ride they will be used

Anonymous

I ride them unless they are really making a point to kick people off (big "no cycling" signs all over). Even then, if it's out of busy hours and basically no one using it, it's fair game. Only the landowner will kick me off then. Some of the specific no cycling paths have some pretty good riding. I'm all for Cheeky Trails.

pilch

signed, but will it really do any good?

I ride them, it's a common sense thing really... the one's with styles & gates every 5 minutes are just not worth it, unless it's just the most efficient way of getting to your trail of choice and you can be arsed to negotiate them.

The ones that are worth riding I just try and be as courteous as possible, to be honest I have had few problems, occasionally you get the odd walker fascist deliberately stand in your way and lecture you with the no cycling bit...

Oh and I was chased by a farmer once, who told me that I was 'ruining his laaand' I pointed out that he had ploughed through the footpath and that far from ruining it I was just helping to remake it.....

Snowdon is the prime example I guess, even riding down before the curfew, most walkers are happy to see a bit of a diversion as they plod up the hill, but you still get the odd 'immovable object' when people around them happily move aside.

Torres

Hmm... just some food for thought: Footpaths aren't really designed for the type of wear associated with bikes and horses (and if it ever came to pass that bikes were allowed on footpaths i'm sure the pony club would want equal rights... but i digress.) So the powers that be will need a ton of cash to either alter the paths to make them suitable, or to repair them when it all goes a bit wrong.

Discuss

Anonymous

Loads of trails round the Surrey Hills near me which are permitted to ride and are nothing more than natural tracks and cope fine. Cope better than actual footpaths as walkers don't use them so much.

Most wouldn't be as heavily used as trail centre trails and shouldn't be much of a problem. Depends on the soil though.

Rambler teams of some 20 odd people with big heavy boots can create more damage than a days worth of bikes.

butcher of bakersfield

Torres wrote:

Hmm... just some food for thought: Footpaths aren't really designed for the type of wear associated with bikes and horses (and if it ever came to pass that bikes were allowed on footpaths i'm sure the pony club would want equal rights... but i digress.) So the powers that be will need a ton of cash to either alter the paths to make them suitable, or to repair them when it all goes a bit wrong.

Discuss

This is the argument that walkers raise time and time again. And I'm quite happy to listen to it, as at the end of the day I don't want to be destructive to the country side.

So they post pictures of 'path erosion', as evidence to support their claims. And very rarely is that erosion caused by cycling. I've seen them post images of erosion that has clearly been caused by quad bikes, motorbikes, 4x4s, and in many instances walkers. In fact, the evidence would suggest - and it's been looked into by 'scientists' - that cycling is less destructive than walking. The reasoning being is that the weight, and footprint, is more evenly distributed. And of course the pictures presented by delusional ramblers...

The only convincing one I seen was a small muddy puddle that had some tyre trails through it about half an inch deep. And the guy who presented this picture as evidence, his argument was walkers would walk around that puddle..

Yes, there's of course going to be some erosion. In some places more than others. But there is really no legitimate evidence that it is more destructive than walking. It all points the other way.

As above, we're not talking about turning every public footpath into a trail centre. Most of them away from the towns and cities will be lucky to see one bike pass each day. And the ones in and around the towns and cities get ridden anyway. And the ramblers don't really care, because inside that civilised little world the law of the country doesn't really exist...everyone grew up using these trails as shortcuts.

There may be some problems yes. I'm sure they can be dealt with as and when, if needs be.......but for the vast majority......I see no cycling signs on roads. It takes the pee. We're talking about the countryside, and what greater way is there of seeing it than on a bike?

Tank-slapper

Torres wrote:

So the powers that be will need a ton of cash to either alter the paths to make them suitable, or to repair them when it all goes a bit wrong.

I went riding in Scotland recently and rode a route that was 'advertised' in two of the guidebooks, taking in part of the Southern Upland Way. The stiles over the deer fences were ridiculous and lifting a bike over was a pain. Clearly the infrastructure has not caught up with the legislation, if it ever will.

Northwind

Torres wrote:

Hmm... just some food for thought: Footpaths aren't really designed for the type of wear associated with bikes and horses (and if it ever came to pass that bikes were allowed on footpaths i'm sure the pony club would want equal rights... but i digress.) So the powers that be will need a ton of cash to either alter the paths to make them suitable, or to repair them when it all goes a bit wrong.

Discuss

OK- Bridleways also aren't designed for bikes, but mostly they do just fine. And wider right to roam spreads the pressure on the trails, which is the number one thing you can do to reduce erosion.

Tank-slapper wrote:

Clearly the infrastructure has not caught up with the legislation, if it ever will.

Why would you say that? There's a big difference between being allowed to ride somewhere, and turning everywhere into bike trails. It's not hard to lift a bike over a deer stile.

cooldad

Bloody deer, spoiling the countryside with their stiles. Venison stew I say.

captainfly

Signed, but I use the local ones anyway simply because there are no bridleways or Restricted Bywaysm it looks like the local council just turned all the roads used a public footpaths into footpaths when legislation changed, I;ve never had a problem the major conern localy is motorbikes using the footpaths, I have stopped and chattd to coppers and pcsos on bikes and horses whilst riding footpaths.

I'm going to be moving to Scotland soon enough so it won't matter to me then :roll:

Anonymous

butcher of bakersfield wrote:

The only convincing one I seen was a small muddy puddle that had some tyre trails through it about half an inch deep. And the guy who presented this picture as evidence, his argument was walkers would walk around that puddle..

Muddy puddles will dry up in good weather and there's little erosion going on. The walkers going around the sides however may be walking at the edge of the path and eroding the vegetation at the sides. One of the things riders are advised is to not create new trails and wear away the edges of paths by going round puddles.

And deer - it's them who create some of the trails in the first place. Many natural trails start as animal tracks. Then we come hurtling through