Forum menu
And so do the Welsh Gov't apparently.
😀
I’d still say it’s a bit disingenuous to liken an individual rider or two frequently riding footpaths for pure personal enjoyment to the organised politically motivated, publicised, single action Kinder Trespass
It wasnt a one off event (the follow up in Winnats pass for example) but is the only one really remembered due to the arrests and press coverage. The reason for it being needed was the violence and aggression shown towards individual walkers or two frequently walking the hills for pure personal enjoyment.
As for alternate options such as lobbying. Those were available to the walkers at the time as well. The Ramblers association, for example, was opposed to direct action, and wanted to stick with just talking. The trespassers disagreed.
I will ride on footpaths with much the same approach to walking on them eg being careful round others and minimising damage to them. As others have said depending on the surface could do far more damage riding a bridleway in bad weather than a footpath next to it.
I’m (mostly) on the Isle of Man, and I have to admit that a lot of what I ride could be classed as “cheeky”. However, in more than thirty years of riding, I’ve only been properly caught once, by a couple of guys on a tractor who insisted that I rode back down the way I’d come up. This in spite of me protesting that it was a pity to lose all this altitude.....
It would be embarrasing to be caught at my age now anyway, because the people doing the catching would be a sight younger than me, most like.
In Greece, I just ride wherever I choose and I’ve never had any grief from anyone, quite the opposite in fact, as farmers and shepherds have often told me about new (to me) paths and tracks.
And so do the Welsh Gov’t apparently.
It's a re-tabled motion - the original one got moved very obviously to a backburner I think on the basis of Brexit screwing up absolutely everything it comes into contact with.
To be fair, there was a whole load of cycle racing on the highways legislation that was supposed to be sorted by now as well and Brexit is the cause behind that being sidelined too.
Not so long ago I had the following exchange with a dog walker. I mis-heard the opening line as “can I ask for some information?” So, being a helpful sort (and thinking he might be lost or something), I ‘engaged’. What he actually said was.
Him: Can I give you some information?
Me: Yeah, sure.
Him: You aren’t allowed to ride bikes here.
Me: Thanks for the advice. Are you the landowner or his or her appointed agent? Because I’d prefer to deal with them on matters of access.
Him: Actually, you are one, as this is owned by the county council.
Me: Oh, that’s a stroke of luck, then.
Him: You are being officious and rude.
I may not have been able to stifle the laugh fully. He clearly didn’t have a sense of irony.
I have also ended up riding behind a woman who had just finished putting some pretty ineffectual branches across a path. As I lobbed the last one a good few yards into the undergrowth I went for ‘bemused cheery bloke’ mode.
I said “I don’t know why people bother doing this, it only takes me a couple of seconds to move each one”. She spat back “It’s because you’re not supposed to ride your bike here”. I chose not to point out that this was close to an admission of guilt and said “Oh well, it seems a tremendous waste of time to me” whilst chuckling affably. She looked like she could quite easily spontaneously combust.
My favourite cheeky trail conflict was being challenged by a teenage girl who was with her mum. I'd stopped to let them pass but she still told me off and tried to tell me how to read a map. I came over all pompous and told her when she'd been to the Himilayas and trekked she could advise me on map reading (I was guided the whole way through my trek, but still she wasn't to know ha). The trail was actually neither a footpath or a bridleway, so we were both in the wrong.
That said, my opinions have changed since I had kids. I now like having somewhere I can take my children where I know there isn't going to be a biker haring around the corner, and I can only presume that the older generation amongst us like this feeling too. I like that my 72 year old mum can walk her dog in the same environment.
Someone else has pointed out that if a cyclist is pottering down a footpath then there's no problem, but let's be honest, none of us want to do that. I mountain bike because I love going fast down a trail, Strava or no Strava. I can't trust myself to go slowly on a footpath and tbh honest I have no interest in doing so, so I stick to bridleways now.
I'm lucky as I now live somewhere where there are great legal trails all over the place so it's rarely an issue. There's lot of room for everyone. But in local woods where there are different users in a small areaI can now see why there's conflict, and I look back on what I used to ride with a little bit of guilt.
The rules say no bikes on footpaths.
They're actually not.
Firstly I've only read half of the first page before I got bored. This has been done many times. In England and Wales the 'rules' are that I don't have a protected right to ride on a footpath. I don't have a right and if the landowner or agent objects we have a civil issue but it's nobody else's business.
For example... directly across from my house is a field that has a footpath running down it. I know the farmer very well - I ate his sausage only last week - and he has no issue with me riding down the path. If I were to meet someone walking up the path and they told me I shouldn't be there as it's a footpath and the rules say so, are they right?
It's not about rules though is it? It's about common sense. I ride on stuff round here year round that's either marked as a footpath or not even on the map. On the other hand there are BWs round here that I wouldn't go near on a sunny Sunday or bank holiday.
I've been riding what some people would call 'cheeky' trails for over 20 years but also running, walking and dragging my kids round the same paths so know a bit about shared use. In 20 years of 'cheeky' I've only had two brief conversations with people who thought I shouldn't be there. Neither of them was an interested party and in both cases the trail I was on is now a concessionary BW.
I now like having somewhere I can take my children where I know there isn’t going to be a biker haring around the corner
In that case as it is a shared trail then the biker is riding like a dick if he is haring round a blind corner.
Someone else has pointed out that if a cyclist is pottering down a footpath then there’s no problem, but let’s be honest, none of us want to do that. I mountain bike because I love going fast down a trail
If you go fast down a trail (legal or not) and hoon it past other trail users then you are, by definition, a dick
I can’t trust myself to go slowly on a footpath and tbh honest I have no interest in doing so, so I stick to bridleways now.
Yep.....Dick for sure
My normal response to some random mithering that I shouldn’t be on that footpath is the ‘I know, crazy isn’t it?’.
I'd highly recommend this approach. It works brilliantly as they normally respond with some slightly rational argument which you can then debate, and generally start to win. At which point they start to get annoyed and say "BUT this is a FOOTPATH, YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED to ride here.
At which point you just respond " Yes, I know IT'S TOTALLY RIDICULOUS isn't it?
And then it just goes round and round with them getting more and more annoyed at the lack of progress and their complete lack of persuasive arguments why you shouldn't be there.
I can’t trust myself to go slowly on a footpath and tbh honest I have no interest in doing so, so I stick to bridleways now.
Yep…..Dick for sure
Can't disagree with that assessment.
Bit of a harsh assessment - staying off footpaths on my bike and riding where I'm permitted to allow others a place to go where they won't find a bike makes me a dick?
And FWIW, I always stop and let other users go past me first.
Good post Higgo
This has been a pretty decent thread, by current STW standards actually.
staying off footpaths on my bike and riding where I’m permitted to allow others a place to go where they won’t find a bike makes me a dick?
They're just being cheeky.
I can’t trust myself to go slowly on a footpath and tbh honest I have no interest in doing so, so I stick to bridleways now.
Yup. Dumb. Arbitrary classification of a line on a map doesnt give you permission to blast it just like you wouldn’t drive at NSL where there were obvious hazards like parked cars, people turning, shit weather. Tons of paths round here you can blast it on plus bridleways that are narrow and busy (Cut Gate).
Im a bit odd with footpaths.
I don't have problems with others riding them (as long as rule 1 is applied obviously) but I can't but help feeling guilty when I personally do it!!
It's to the point where it actually lessons the pleasure of the ride when I do ride cheeky.... so I almost always stay on the bridleways.
Like I said, I'm a bit odd with this one as I also think it is ridiculous that we can't ride on footpaths in the 21st century!
After many years of having seemingley grumpy folk saying 'wheres yer bell' I thought I'd try one. It only bloody works! Not only do they mostly step aside but they say thank you and smile instead of scowling 🙂
I got myself a bell last year too. People do seem to appreciate it and are often surprised I've got one.
Of course you have to exercise caution when riding bridleways just as you would any other trail, slow down for other users, be courteous etc. But my point is (if clumsily made) that people expect to see a rider on a bridleway now, they're surprised if they see us on a footpath. And that's because we're not allowed on there, and I think that should remain.
People who don't like cyclists sharing the trails with them for whatever reason should still have that space they can go. Bikes can be intimidating to some, and even bikers approaching at a moderate pace before stopping can be noisy and disruptive to their peace. Let them have that space I say, we've got loads of other places to go.
And we're the first to complain if we find walkers on trail centre trails. What's the difference?
People who don’t like cyclists sharing the trails with them for whatever reason should still have that space they can go.
Which is what open access gave them in spades but I don’t see many using it.
people expect to see a rider on a bridleway now, they’re surprised if they see us on a footpath
Most people don't have a clue about different types of Rights of Way, and certainly don't know what type of trail they're actually walking on.
But my point is (if clumsily made) that people expect to see a rider on a bridleway now, they’re surprised if they see us on a footpath.
Fair enough. My experience has been that the kind of people who are surprised to see us on a footpath are equally surprised to see us on a bridleway. The conflicts that you talk about seem (to me) less about our presence per se, more the style of rider.
If riders go hammering around a blind corner on any sort of public path, FP or BW, then it's not surprising that the people they encounter in a flurry of panic braking and flying gravel will be intimidated and potentially hostile. And the anger generated by that interaction then gets passed on to every other rider who is approaching at pootle pace, pulling over to the side and greeting them with a smile.
As usual, it comes back to rule no.1. If we want the mindset of walkers to change in our favour, the mindset of riders feeling they need to go flat out at all times, regardless of ROW status, needs to change first.
eg Loughrigg Terrace (BW) would be a fine, flat out blast when it's empty, but it never is, so I'm happy to cruise down there and make sure my interactions with walkers are as positive as I can make them.
And we’re the first to complain if we find walkers on trail centre trails. What’s the difference?
Totally different. Trail centres make up such a miniscule proportion of the countryside and overall trail network. I accept they are great as a purpose built all weather option for those who just want a blast and don't want to think/plan about navigation.
Not sure that, legally, walkers are not allowed on trail centre trails anyway?
And many trail centres also have a network of dedicated walker trails where bikes are not permitted.
There is a case for segregation at such places, but in the great outdoors, there is room for everyone and all trails should be shared use in my view, so long as everyone obeys rule #1.
People who don’t like cyclists sharing the trails with them for whatever reason should still have that space they can go. Bikes can be intimidating to some, and even bikers approaching at a moderate pace before stopping can be noisy and disruptive to their peace. Let them have that space I say, we’ve got loads of other places to go.
Except that, relatively speaking, we don't.
All these attempts to justify separation of walker and rider flounder as soon as you cross the border into Scotland where it has proven to be a non-issue. And don't start the "it's a lot less busy" nonsense. The Scottish access laws apply to everywhere, including areas around Scotlands largest towns and cities.
Most people don’t have a clue about different types of Rights of Way, and certainly don’t know what type of trail they’re actually walking on.
This point is worth quoting for greater attention. I have a fairly decent understanding of RoWs and still often don't have a Danny LaRue what status of track I'm on.
All these attempts to justify separation of walker and rider flounder as soon as you cross the border into Scotland where it has proven to be a non-issue. And don’t start the “it’s a lot less busy” nonsense. The Scottish access laws apply to everywhere, including areas around Scotlands largest towns and cities.
Spot-on - and ultimately the fact that there's been a large and successful test-case on the same landmass should give us real hope that change is ultimately inevitable for England as well as Wales.
It’s another them and us situation which as a society we are pretty good at creating and escalating. Open access to cyclists and work on users getting along and being courteous would be a lot more beneficial all round.
I live in a rural area and pretty much straight onto the trails, of which, the bridleways are very popular with horses and many really don’t like bikes, so if I don’t know them I usually get off my bike and wait until they pass. There are loads of footpaths, a number of which are only really suitable for mountain bikes and in the last five years I’ve not seen a single walker on them (and we walk, bike or run up there every day). That doesn’t stop a really unpleasant individual keep blocking the trails and putting up dozens of signs saying cycling not allowed.
A perfect example of the bizarre way even council employees get bogged down in them and us. Several weeks ago a countryside warden was up there, cutting some trees down to block some trails, at the same time, we were out walking, I was removing partly fallen heavy branches hanging over footpaths (the kind of branches that could lead to a council getting sued) and clearing some edges of the path that walkers were tripping over. I also spent a fair bit of time clearing up dog poo and litter. The countryside warden spent the same few hours blocking trails and left. All a bit odd, but I genuinely believe shared access will improve everybodies experience; more respect and consideration for each other and our environment.
I have nothing useful to add at this point but top post goes to higgo for dedication to securing access rights:
I know the farmer very well – I ate his sausage only last week
Not really a cheeky trail as its defo a footpath and out of bounds but the descent from skiddaw and onto ullock pike is probably the best descent I've ridden in the UK, passed about 20 or so elderly ramblers on the way down last summer who without exception were amazed to see 2 bikes coming down and all moved aside to let us have a clear run, smiling as we passed. Encountered a younger couple further down the ridge, the bloke saw us coming and made a great effort to make sure we had to stop before muttering something about dickhead mountain bikers before going on his way. Scotland has the right idea with access laws, looks like Wales is following suit in the near future and good old England.........
"All these attempts to justify separation of walker and rider flounder as soon as you cross the border into Scotland where it has proven to be a non-issue."
In the main. A year or two post access laws I did have a walker shouting at me and Mrs IRC that cycling wasn't allowed around Milngavie Reservoirs. In fairness to him Scottish Water hadn't updated signage. Water of a ducks back to me but she found it unpleasant.
Scottish Water subsequently ignored e-mails from me and my local councilor requesting the signs be amended. I had to get my MSP involved before they would do anything and remove the "No Cycling" signs.
Then there is the odd local problem like the Glen Lyon Munros
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-27243818
But I agree walker V cylist conflict in general is not a problem in Scotland and the access laws have worked well.
“All these attempts to justify separation of walker and rider flounder as soon as you cross the border into Scotland where it has proven to be a non-issue.”
Does anyone know of any studies/surveys/data gatheing or anything that have been done in this?
But my point is (if clumsily made) that people expect to see a rider on a bridleway now, they’re surprised if they see us on a footpath.
That can just as easily be an argument for more riding on footpaths so they get used to it. Although I would agree with Esme about people not knowing the path status in many cases.
Only dangerous incident I have had with a cyclist was on a bridleway with the moron riding round a blind corner flat out.
If I dont have decent sightlines then I will cut down the speed so wont come flying round a corner into someone and, once I see someone, I will drop the speed as necessary.
Same rule applies whether on footpath/bridleway or trail centre.
Riding in Surrey last weekend we were climbing on the banks at the side of a narrow heavily sunken bridleway - super soft and sandy at the bottom where the horses had been. We were told off by a guy who was walking his dog, along the same bank that we were!
Bridleway vs footpath is a bit of a moot point on the Surrey Hills where much of the riding, and walking, is on paths that aren't on the map. When you meet someone walking up a clearly 'built' cheeky trail with their dog who's really in the wrong?
Not sure that, legally, walkers are not allowed on trail centre trails anyway?
And many trail centres also have a network of dedicated walker trails where bikes are not permitted.
Bikes have permissive access to certain things at trail centres. This is at the land owners discretion. On private land permissive access for walking / horse riding would be at the land owners discretion (outside of a public right of way). Other things apply in Scotland.
If the land is dedicated under the countryside and rights of way act (so any FC land) then walkers are legally entitled to go anywhere; that includes bike trails.
As an aside; I guess it depends who you speak to as wether the Scottish access model is successful and problem free.
I avoid footpaths where practically possibly and mostly agree with trail wagget. However, if a short section of FP is the only way of avoiding a busy road or long detour I go for it, especially if it's on a farm track. If there are people around I walk.
I don't like it and want change but try to respect the rules.
Today I got irritated- bridleway running up to a Woodland Trust site with a massive path continuing through, which I assumed allowed cycling (nothing on the WT website to say otherwise, and they are nice, right?). Nope. Situations like this seem stupid.
Also, regarding the law, would it also be the case there is no right to take a wheel chair on a FP?
Legally you can to take a wheelchair anywhere you can access on foot iirc.
Practically you'll be sat in the car park unable to get past the gate / stile.
A problem exacerbated by land owners putting these things in and not being prepared to make them accessible because they get fed up of mountain bikes / horses / motor vehicles going where they shouldn't.
Open access to cyclists and work on users getting along and being courteous would be a lot more beneficial all round.
It would help if the Ramblers Assoc. didn't object by reflex every time somebody tries to get bridleway rights recorded over footpaths.
As an aside; I guess it depends who you speak to as wether the Scottish access model is successful and problem free.
Codification of access law in Scotland was contained in the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003. The act was reviewed in 2016 and no changes were made to access arrangements.
Successful? - yes.
Problem free? - largely yes. I can think of a few exceptions (camping on Lomondside, a couple of access disagreements), but these are very much in the minority and are not specific to cycling.
Today I heard something that might be interesting to the thread.
On the Malvern Hills they have recently opened three waymarked routes for cyclists. Someone told me today that "they" ( not sure who this is, council?) Are handing out on the spot fines of £80 to anyone caught riding anywhere that is not part of one of these routes.
So, first off. Is this true? Anyone else heard this?
Second, how enforceable are the fines?
Successful? – yes.
What does success mean in that context?
Second, how enforceable are the fines?
Completely, it would appear (somewhat to my surprise). See Malvern Hill Trust Bylaws, 8(b) says you can only cycle on a bridleway, or where they say, and 41 says you can be fined up to Level 2 on the standard scale, which is £500.
It's a great topic to discuss and one of which will stir some strong opinions.
Firstly dispite what has been posted a few pages back the law is outdated .
So outdated that there is little clarity for the users ie riders walkers etc on what is legal and what isn't legal.
After all who can 100% hold there hand up and say they adhere to every single speed limit at all times in there cars, yet in this scenario the law is flounced without such consciousness.
Then the law on rights of way is so outdated that the landowner even if they wanted too would struggle to ever get a case to court to stop bikes or anyone they didn't want on there land .it's hard enough getting our local council to remove gypsies from the local supermarket carpark.
I personally am of the thinking that this world was given to us all to enjoy responsibly and explore.
I'm not prepared to flout someone's personal land willy nilly but I'm more than happy to share a footpath or ride land that is imo the right of the human race to access and enjoy .
Untill such time that the world has addressed a degree more on the more important matters of terrorism\mp,s stealing public money to use on large houses they sometimes may or may not stay in etc etc then I say let's carry on as we are with the odd misery guts having a moan or indeed the odd dick on a bike giving the rest of us a bad name .
I often tell the red faced angry brigade that I also trespassed in Afghanistan to save 3 of my colleagues ,I also disobeyed direct orders to save myself and the remaining crew instead of heading my crew into direct gun fire to save 3 lives .
I was told I could be court martial but Instead 12 months later I was awarded the military cross .
I've since met the family of the people my crew helped save and I don,t regret breaking the law ,which is what I was doing.
2 months after receiving the military cross I left the forces disillusioned.
My opinion isn't right .it isn't wrong either it's simply my opinion.
As of which last time I checked we are all entitled too.
Good god. That’s the Malvern knocked off the list of places to spend a weekend.
I see lots of signs saying no dogshit, fine £500. I also see lots of dogshit. I don’t see anyone dishing out little pieces of paper.
You expect the dog owners to wipe their pooches arses too?
Some of you might know that I've been heavily involved in MTB advocacy for some years both as @KoftheP and on PDMTB's committee. It's a slog.
We all know there's not enough of the trail network for us to ride and we all know that at times people will ride footpaths. There's always a demand then for a trail centre in the peak, but again in the next breath we want it unspoilt. You can't ride where you want, or even build a trail and also have it unspoilt. Do we want to be hounded into quarantined spaces or do we want open access? Yes, it's not that binary an argument but it has been suggested by anti-MTB groups recently.
There's a real challenge in all of this. We are making some amazing strides forward in changing things for the better for mountain biking for the wider MTB community - those who perhaps don't know the rules and regs or perhaps don't have the desire to get into a debate - but we seem reluctant to let go of some perceived 'rebellious' badge that we never really had in the first place. At times we're our own worst enemy. Anti-mountain bike groups don't have to dig deep to find evidence to use against us in debates they have with people with the power to open up more access but none of the actual facts. I've seen strava used against us by landowners who went as far as to find out where the riders lived.
We've had some real debates about this at PDMTB. There's no real right answer to it that will suit everyone I don't think.
At the end of the day, IMHO it's don't be a dick. If something's sensitive and riding it will undermine the work of groups which could improve access, don't ride it. That means that at times we come across all trail policey - but 'good' behaviour/responsible riding has led to improved access.
Here's what we said online about it
http://peakdistrictmtb.org/earth-cheeky-riding/
and my experience of riding a path which is nonsensically designated as footpath near me.
http://peakdistrictmtb.org/youre-just-a-nuisance/
When landowners start using permissive access as a stick to beat cyclists with I lose interest in retaining their “goodwill”. We have a local landowner with a terrible reputation for refusing access (even where it legally existed) who allowed a charity event to use some tracks. The next thing we hear from the organisers is that they are threatening to withdraw permission because people rode the same tracks at other times. Therefore the charity would not get the money. I’m all for advocacy and keeping channels of communication open, but being a dick can apply just as much to landowners as users.