Was out on local hill (Dumyat) at weekend – a very popular walking path and a great descent – its geting a fair amount of MTB traffic on it now, inlcuding all sorts from XC to full on downhill rigs too. Whilst in granny ring mode on the climb, we we passed by a lad with full-face on the descent. All fine there – until we stopped to watch him head down and saw him approach a group of walkers and shout what can only be described as a loud "FORE!" from about 20 yards behind them to get them out his way so he could keep up speed. They did move, rather than get hit, but surely this is not the way to deal with shared-use paths? Its the kind of thing that gets us all a bad name. Thoughts?

'tis poor form, probably illegal too I'd have thought?

He is a plonker and will give us all a bad name – he simply is not exercising his right to roam responsibly.

Why illegal?

Poor form certainly but a bit of common sense is needed in these kind of situations. He shouldn't have been going so fast; the walkers for their part should realise that it would be helpful to all if they just stood to one side for a few seconds while he went past.

He should have dinged his bell and said a polite thankyou as he passed.

shout what can only be described as a loud "FORE!"

Bellend, you should have caught him up and pulled his front brake.

"On your left" or "on your right" works quite well, I normally say how many left to pass, hikers seem to appreciate it.

Maybe an MP3 player with speakers playing a recording of a motorcycle engine might be a suitable solution?

wrong but at the same time made me smile.

Sorry. 🙄

agreed probably bad form but its had me chuckling away for a couple of minutes.

what considerate rider

I'd have run them over 8)

crazy-legs – Member
Why illegal?

Because Mtbers have to give way to walkers and horse riders.

Just as well none of the walkers were hard of hearing then.

They did move, rather than get hit, but surely this is not the way to deal with shared-use paths?

Correct

Its the kind of thing that gets us all a bad name. Thoughts?

…and correct again.

There's no way what he did was 'illegal', I've checked the statute and it definitely doesn't mention anything about this.

'Unlawful' might be a more appropriate term, but I'm not going to check case law. I'd suggest 'anti-social' would be the best description. Or just simply, 'amusing'.

I don't think you can over estimate the degree to which you need to slow down for it to feel comfortable to people on foot. Go right down to walking pace, or stop entirely is what I use and what anyone on our rides is expected to do. When the coast is clear you can get back on it and everyone is happy.

Last week I was coming through the woods back to my house and stopped for a lady with a lab – first of all she wanted to say that I shouldn't be on the footpath (another story, should be a bridlepath, I've cycled it for 40 years and so will my kids) but then we had a nice chat – anyhow… she said that she didn't walk on Holmbury Hill at all on the weekend because of the bikes. Think how you would feel if your nearest open space was off limits due to visitors.

It's not off limits though is it, she's chosen not to go there. Same as I could chose not to ride somewhere because of all the walkers. I don't understand how you can tell everyone to stop for walkers in the same breath as admitting you ride on footpaths, surely the two very differing attitudes don't sit well together.

Walkers know the score, if they pause for a second as we wizz past it does them no harm, if we stop it's a complete pain. Everyone is happy. Apart from the miserble bastards, they're never happy, but there are as many of them on bikes as out walking.

That's terrible form by afore mentioned downhiller.

On his approach to the walkers he should have been "shreding the rad" and looked for the best launch pad, ie berm, rock or natural occurring divot.

Hit this object to enable him to launch over the heads of the walkers while doing a superman seat grap, into a heel clicker and then can-can.

Do these full face helmet downhillers no nowt about trail etiquette.

The "red sock brigade" would then have a nice story to tell at their next coffee morning. 🙂

glenp – Member
I don't think you can over estimate the degree to which you need to slow down for it to feel comfortable to people on foot.

I agree. Regardless of the rights and wrongs of it, it's simple good manners.

I'm I the only one that finds despite whether you call trail left or right most walkers scatter in a completely random manner when you try to go past them, most of the time straight into your path causing a near miss??

Kingkongs finger
That's terrible form by afore mentioned downhiller.

On his approach to the walkers he should have been "shreding the rad" and looked for the best launch pad, ie berm, rock or natural occurring divot.

Hit this object to enable him to launch over the heads of the walkers while doing a superman seat grap, into a heel clicker and then can-can.

Do these full face helmet downhillers no nowt about trail etiquette.

The "red sock brigade" would then have a nice story to tell at their next coffee morning.

+ 1 😆

don't understand how you can tell everyone to stop for walkers in the same breath as admitting you ride on footpaths, surely the two very differing attitudes don't sit well together.

Because my approach is identical in both situations – stop and say hello, no harm done, lots of good done.

Stopping (or very nearly stopping) for walkers only seems like a pain until you just do it all the time, whereupon you'll realise that it is actually a much better way of doing things.

I'm I the only one that finds despite whether you call trail left or right most walkers scatter in a completely random manner when you try to go past them, most of the time straight into your path causing a near miss??

By "quite well" this is what I meant! I swear sheep are more predictable.

By "quite well" this is what I meant! I swear sheep are more predictable.
+1

The last thing you want to do is ride "through" a group, to the left or to the right is great, but why do they split both ways:-)

Good lad, full speed ahead.

The guy is an idiot and will only end up giving cyclists a bad name when he hits someone.

There are places for DH or any riding so we don't end up hitting riders!

>It's not off limits though is it, she's chosen not to go there

Well, it is if she feels intimidated by the way people ride there.
Similarly, in my Close there's several retired/semi-retired people whose wives are scared of cycling what are relatively safe* local roads 'cos of cars skimming their handlebars – they often ride on the pavement.
(*having said that, one of our posties lost his lower leg recently after a lorry sandwiched him against some parked cars outside a parade of shops…)

Equally having some idiot passing closely at speed on a bike is gonna be intimidating – do you trust that they're gonna hit you ? – and why should you ?
Not mention what wouldn't bother someone when they're 20 probably will when they're 50. Get hit by some knob-jockey on a bike and the injury's gonna take longer to heal (if at all)

>Or just simply, 'amusing'.

Words fail me…