As someone stated "the reaction I expected" but put to the back of my mind. To be in the "i'll ride where I want" mindset, is very narrow minded. Is biking the only way to enjoy the outdoors? Seems you think so, I feel sorry for you. If you want the right to ride on FOOTpaths, write off to peak national park or whoever it is looks after your park and appeal. Until then you have no right to ride there, same as I have no right to break into your house.
That's a very poor argument.
To be in the "i'll ride where I want" mindset, is very narrow minded
If footpaths really were in existence because bikes and horses would otherwise trash them, there'd maybe be justification and many in this thread have stated that they wouldn't ride where they'd do damage. As it is, bikes have never been proven to do more damage than feet. The designation of footpath/bridleway is often silly and largely based on what some bloke ages ago fancied/was paid/persuaded to mark them as. It's a silly rule.
yes I have bridelways that ar eopen moorland and forptahs that are hard packed stone or man made. I would trash one legally but leave one undamaged illegally.
There is not always a clear reason for why one path is a BW and one a footpath
You have no legal right of way into my house - This is a civil distinction. If you break into my house you have committed a crime - This is a criminal distinction.
You have no 'right of way' on a footpath as a cyclist - this is a civil matter.
These are all legal distinctions that in no way affect the argument as to whether you 'should' be there or not.
Until then you have no right to ride there, same as I have no right to break into your house
Have you read all the articles about access recently?
If you break into my house, that's burglary which is a criminal offence.
If I ride my bike on a footpath, that's trespass, which is a civil
offence, except where local byelaws apply, and even then its only a fine to the appropriate body.
It's not a silly rule at all. Look at Scotland where the world has ended because all the paths are shared use.
When I'm down south I ride where I want although this is mostly at trail centres. I'll have some fun if anyone ever tries to stop me and give me a bollocking.
Question for you:
[img] 
[/img]
Footpath or bridleway?
Is biking the only way to enjoy the outdoors? Seems you think so, I feel sorry for you.
Gee, fanks!
If you want the right to ride on FOOTpaths, write off to peak national park or whoever it is looks after your park and appeal
That's some pretty revolutionary stuff you're proposing there fella. I'm sure that would never have occurred to anyone before you mentioned it. I feel 100% certain that its never been done before
Tell you what - I'll rattle a letter off this afternoon. I shall then sit back and await ALL the footpaths in East Lancs to be reclassified as bridleway by tomorrow tea time.
That's how this whole democracy thing works, isn't it? What could conceivably go wrong?
And just for you - Here's a clip I found on Youtube of my personal favourite footpath. In fact, I imagine its a lot of peoples favourite ....
Well Singletrack World could always take up bike access as a campaign and start galvanising ministers, MPs and National Park authorities, council officials etc, to do something about it. Start petitions, get lots of people on your side, and I'm sure they'll listen - well eventually .... maybe ...?!
To be in the "i'll ride where I want" mindset, is very narrow minded.
most people haven't said i'll ride where i want though. most people have commented on the strange and historic way we arrived at where we are.
[img] 
[/img] what harm am i doing riding across this bridge? which is designated a footpath.
Funny, that footpath looks like a road to me. And to be honest I've some some roads that would be better off as footpaths.
This is obviously an evidence gathering thread for the Ramblers (note capital R).
Once upon a time, they wanted to open up countryside access, now they campaign to restrict it; what a great bunch of folks they've become. As has already been pointed out, they'd not have any footpaths in the first place if people way back when had just followed the rules.
I heartily support anyone who wants to pit themselves against the terrain (using anything from boots to land rovers, even though my own interest stops at anything bigger than motorbikes) who politely and civilly just goes out and does it - our laws are a hopeless kludge based on momentum and rhetoric instead of evidence.
Lovin that vid Binners.... 😀
As it is, bikes have never been proven to do more damage than feet.
Come on who on here believes that a bike does less damage then a walker on soft muddy ground, bikes cut long vertical trenches compared to a squashed footprint.
bikes cut long vertical trenches compared to a squashed footprint.
Vertical? You need a ladder...
Anyway, bikes on the whole (if not ridden by jessies) are more likely to go through the middle of a boggy pathc, rather than than skirting further and further around it.
Maybe we should all be riding fatbikes.
I like biking and walking, and I think they can both peacefully co-exist. It's the fell-runners that are the problem - only kidding .....
Heres another one cardo - with a big off in the middle of it 🙂
Can anyone really see any reason why that isn't a bridleway? If the Ramblers, or whoever, made any serious attempt to stop us all riding down the San Marino, they'd have a war on their hands!
In all the time i've ridden down san marino I haven't been stopped or moaned at once. Always a cheery hello if there are people walking up or down. And stop posting videos of it, it's mine. 👿
As someone stated "the reaction I expected" but put to the back of my mind. To be in the "i'll ride where I want" mindset, is very narrow minded. Is biking the only way to enjoy the outdoors? Seems you think so, I feel sorry for you. If you want the right to ride on FOOTpaths, write off to peak national park or whoever it is looks after your park and appeal. Until then you have no right to ride there, same as I have no right to break into your house.
So you never break any rules at all?
Fair enough. People that don't drive/ride motorbikes on the road often do find it pretty easy to do so.
People that do use motorised vehicles on the road either do break the law pretty regularly, or kid themselves they don't :).
And yes, it is illegal and people have been done for being 1mph over the limit.
I thought that one would be coming 😉I'm glad I live in Scotland where we have sensible access regulations...
BTW: this post is both naive and annoyingly Daily Mail-eque, may I suggest you call in to Jeremy Vine, he might be slightly more interested with you banal rant.
klumpy
This is obviously an evidence gathering thread for the Ramblers (note capital R).Once upon a time, they wanted to open up countryside access, now they campaign to restrict it
i guess this is an internet forum and diverse opinions are ok but i'd be interested in knowing which Ramblers Association campaign involves any intent to restrict access to the countryside ?
here is some help [url] http://www.ramblers.org.uk/Campaigns+Policy/Campaigns [/url]
if you mean that local groups that are members of the RA sometimes oppose "upgrading" footpaths to bridleway status because of a perception of conflict then i don't see that as a campaign - just ignorance
Edit just read last part of klumpy's post - closet greenlaner
Not yet no, there's still the <2% of rights of way that motorvehicles can use.
But they need some ammunition to justify their fees for when they've got read of that group.
/out-of-the-closet greenlaner (though I haven't for several years as prefer proper enduro events etc)
funny topic to read 🙄
But like others have said there is no legal rules with footpaths as its at the discretion of the land owner.
In our local wood there are quote" footpaths" and bridleways ect, but everyone whos a MTB rides the footpaths due to the bridleways being used by motobike riders and making 2 foot deep holes like a farmers field in them.
The local farmer is a good friend of the MTBs and he even opens up land for us to ride in, which is good.
He does this because most MTB riders maintain the land and "footpaths" ie putting logs down abd bridging gaps which normally couldnt be walked across, in turn people can walk into areas of the wood they couldnt before.
so it works both ways, respect the woodland rather than asking for respect yourselfs.
I've not read all this but I assume someone's mentioned how walkers got their access rights in the first place? And obviously access rights in the UK predate MTBs?
Common sense, respect for other users and the environment, plus some courtesy. All that overrules daft access rights in my mind. If it's a public right of way I'll ride it with due care and attention. I may avoid some of these ROWs when wet / busy etc - common sense + courtesy as per the above rule.
Perhaps when someone starts paying attention to 4x4 use on local bridleways and horses on footpaths, then I'll pay a bit more attention to those who criticise where I ride. In my local area I'm a long way from being the major cause of erosion and trail degradation. Many bridleways here are impassable in winter due to 4x4 and horse use. Even some footpaths are a state from the same users.
OP, with respect, please don't ask / tell me what to do or say I'm narrow minded for doing what I do. Rules with no sensible basis deserve to be ignored and you can't solve a problem caused by a minority by dealing with the whole group.
I ought to say, about that pic up there ^
Its an old miners track, used for years (centuries?) by pack-horses. Now used by farmers/shepherds on quad bikes, so clearly a sturdy track.
In one of his books, Wainwright describes it as a bridleway.
On the OS map, its a footpath.
Its also a pleasant climb on the bike, and a cracking swoopy descent. 🙂
As someone stated "the reaction I expected" but put to the back of my mind. To be in the "i'll ride where I want" mindset, is very narrow minded. Is biking the only way to enjoy the outdoors? Seems you think so, I feel sorry for you. If you want the right to ride on FOOTpaths, write off to peak national park or whoever it is looks after your park and appeal. Until then you have no right to ride there, same as I have no right to break into your house.
TBH John you dont sound a lot like someone who ACTUALLY rides a bike..Youre far too confrontational to be a genuine MTBr. There have been threads on here before on this subject & I dont recall anyone taking such a pro attitude as yours..Difference of opinions yes, but never anyone advocating the retention of the status quo as strongly as you...
Seriously I think youre a troll looking to garner some of evidence of trail abuse to further an as yet unknown agenda.
Boys & Girls my advice is to stay away from this thread. It smacks of deception to me...The OP is not to be trusted I feel.
Given that the OP posts on a few of the Bivi threads I'm assuming he's bivi'd in various locations.
Just wondering how many of those might be considered 'cheeky' rather than properly registered campsites?
Given that the OP posts on a few of the Bivi threads I'm assuming he's bivi'd in various locations.Just wondering how many of those might be considered 'cheeky' rather than properly registered campsites?
Yep. Strange attitude for one who seems to love getting away from it all..perhaps he was having a bad day & needed to vent? Nonetheless his stance seems an odd one & quite contrary..
Ah go on then, as its apparently not just a good trolling.
Q.
Is this matter being dealt with by the
Footpath Liberation Front of Lancashire...
or the
Front for the Liberation of Lancashire Footpaths...
or the
Liberation Front for the Footpaths of Lancashire...
etc....ad nauseam.
In the mean time, until someone starts a credible and organised campaign of civil disobedience, I think I'll just carry on being courteous to those that I meet whilst riding anywhere I fancy.
If the *ing Footpath Liberation Front of Lancashire come anywhere near my *ing [s]footpaths[/s] trails, I'll take them to the ****ing cleaners!!!!!
Footpath Liberation Front of Lancashire? SPLITTERS!!!
you've got the idea Binners 🙂
My 2p worth: -
It, IMHO, boils down to bad timing in the 50's when PRoWs were recorded. Parish surveyors, in fairness, didn't really pay as much attention to recording the status of route as they should have done; in the surveyors mind it wouldn't really matter if it was a BW or not, simply because horses weren't really used as much as they were pre-WW2, and of course, MTB's weren't invented yet. Their task was predominantly to record the alignment of the path and to write a simple description.
If the exercise were repeated today it'd envisage it being unless there is a reason not to, record it as a BW and allow walkers / horses / bikes. There would be though a new classification of recorded RoW for use by walkers and bikes only, like a cycle path.
Of course there's also the old chestnut of BW's only having to be of a standard suitable for horses, not bikes. Magically changing every FP to a BW would be great, but there'd be more to do.
It, again IMO, would be easier if riding on a FP *was* a criminal offence as it'd be easier to legalise / decriminalise it. At present, and its been mentioned above, as it's a civil offence it can't be easily be resolved by statute - i.e. how can you legalise something when its not illegal?
Uhh, what was the question again? 😛
Well, we don't "get away with it", we just have a system that works better than the randomness and complexity of bridleways. Scotland on average is low population density, but if you ride somewhere like the Pentlands you're 15 minute's drive from the city, or 5 minutes ride from my house, not low population at all.
Sorry, you 'get away with it' in the manner that you don't have loads of people complaining about mountain bikers, etc.
Ie, when out greenlaning on a motorbike you will still often see people having a go (even when you've seen them ahead, pulled over and stopped to let them walk past) despite doing everything absolutely legally.
I get that on tow paths (the ones where they permit cycling). As per the instructions on my local one, all signposted, I'm courteous, slow down, stop, give way and always give people on foot priority. I'll even get off and walk past if it's a family with little kids or a dog that looks like it will run all over the place.
Still, I get the dirty looks, shouts about not ringing my bell (for one I don't use a bell, and second they hear me perfectly well and even turn round to look, turn back then shout about the bell situation), and the stubborn folk who see me and proceed to refuse to let me past despite holding back, waiting for them to make room, asking politely. Usually older folk who do it. Miserable gits. Get a life and just enjoy the outdoors with the rest of us.
Actually on the bell situation, when I have used one, with plenty of notice, they pretend to jump out of their skin and proceed to shout at me also or at least a dirty look.
Come on who on here believes that a bike does less damage then a walker on soft muddy ground, bikes cut long vertical trenches compared to a squashed footprint
Making some sweeping assumptions: since a hiker and walker have equivalent power, trail-pressure relates to weight and "footprint". Since me+bike is fractionally heavier than me, and my tyre-print is smaller than my boot-print, I expect biking has a bit more impact. But not significantly more.
The erosion we can see indicates a very welcome increase in trail use by all user-groups. The issue is how to manage the impact of this new popularity. The "legal" crap is a total red-herring. IMO.
It, IMHO, boils down to bad timing in the 50's when PRoWs were recorded.
The problem is a rather more recent one than that - late '60s IIRC when cyclists very nearly got the right to ride on footpaths in the one and only chance at sorting out the issue.
TBH I'm really not sure I care that much about whether I'm trespassing riding on a FP. The law which really rankles is the one which says it's [b]illegal[/b] (as in the police can prosecute you for it) to race a bicycle on a BW when it's perfectly legal to race on a FP (hence in some events the FPs are allowed, the BWs not), and also perfectly legal to race a motorbike on a BW. The idiot minister in charge of CROW really didn't understand the point about that when it was raised as a motion a few years ago.
geebus - MemberSorry, you 'get away with it' in the manner that you don't have loads of people complaining about mountain bikers, etc.
Actually, we do. There's nothing magically different about people north of the border (well, apart from being paler and frequently more ginger)
Ah, that's not the experience of the people I know that ride motorbikes off road in Scottish countryside - where it's actually illegal, as opposed to in the UK where I often got hassle when I was being legal.
Im waith aracer really.
As long as its a civil issue, I couldnt acre a monkeys.
The "offence" is to cause damage, we all know that we're not causing any real quantifiable damage in most cases of riding on footpaths.
What annoys me, like aracer, is when it's no longer civil, such as bylaws.
Its not that one's any more likely to get banged up, just that the offence is no longer linked to damage, but simply by riding a bike in a specific place where a law declares you cant. The sanctions usually arnt that serious, but its usual that somewhere with such bylaws will have the machinery in place to make riding there awkward such as having rangers, patrols, anti-bike trail barriers etc.
FWIW, ride on doods, the man cant touch you...mostly....
I had great conversation with a beach warden whilst on the pugsley, on a beach, beside a road that is closed for the summer to create more pedestrian space.
"you can't ride here, no cycling"
"yes I can, the ban is on the road not the beach. The councils ownership is above the high tide line, the tide goes all the way to the road / prom. ( I was riding at the bottom of a low tide) and therefore you are a beach warden without a beach".
I poach trails but always politely and discreetly with the most sensitive being bagged in the last moments of daylight midweek whilst not wearing neon, zero skids, try not to leave a mark.
If there is no evidence and no witnesses... Did it really happen?
How do you go about getting rights of way changed????
How do you go about getting rights of way changed????
Downgrade:
[img]
[/img]Upgrade:
[img]
[/img]
🙂
A few bits of discussion on here about the erosion damage and one or two referring to some research.
Interestingly if you follow that research its pretty thin and really not applicable to UK conditions especially in winter.
I believe bikes cause a similar amount of erosion to walkers in most circumstances - however it varies greatly depending on the ground and loads of factors and at worst is far more damaging than walkers - but at best is less so.
One local trail the bikes cut thru the surface and the next winter water runnoff in the channels created by the bike tyres dug a 3 ft deep trench 🙁
One local trail the bikes cut thru the surface and the next winter water runnoff in the channels created by the bike tyres dug a 3 ft deep trench
Surely a good thing 😉
And I'd like to add that Uncle Jezza is supremely qualified to comment on this subject as he's ridden down my favourite footpath on a tandem. Nuff respec'
I do miss sfb and the Bogtrotters perspective on footpaths.
binners - MemberAnd I'd like to add that Uncle Jezza is supremely qualified to comment on this subject as he's ridden down my favourite footpath on a tandem. Nuff respec'
You didn't tell me it was a footpath 😯
I fail to understand why these threads create such aggro. Surely all users - foot, bike, MX, 4x4, horses - all need to be sensitive to the damage they create when conditions are worsening. As this is a mtb fourm, then there is no harm at putting the responsibility on ourselves.
The erosion debate is frankly a red-herring. Most of us have eyes, when the trails are wet and you ride them and brake in the scary bits (!!), what happens? We leave a mess. Its pretty obvious. My rule of thumb is, if the conditions deteriorate to the extent that my skills are not enough (and I am leaving a few too may brake scars) then its time to pack in and go home.
None of us have a right to leave a mess - be it litter or tire marks!! So why not just be sensible and sensitive towards our environment? Its just a little respect for the environment and for others.
Well I know its different north of the border mate. And I didn't want to disorientate you or leave you feeling like you were being oppressed 😉
tomthumb, re your picture. How ***** off does the cattery owner get when you cycle down that tarmaced footpath?. I just ignore him the most of the time, but its was very funny to watch him go bannans.
I fail to understand why these threads create such aggro. Surely all users - foot, bike, MX, 4x4, horses - all need to be sensitive to the damage they create when conditions are worsening. As this is a mtb fourm, then there is no harm at putting the responsibility on ourselves.
I think the majority are sensitive/aware/responsible, but the ignorant/selfish minority have been sufficient in number to create a perception (amongst walkers in particular) that wheels = bad.
The problem is, if a group of walkers has just one negative experience of an MTBer then some will adopt the opinion that all MTBers are just as bad.
It's the same problem that road cyclists & commuters have - a minority RLJ & use the pavement, and suddenly that's the only thing motorists & pedestrians think of when they see someone on a bike.
Human nature seems to readily remember the one negative event rather than the other 99 positive ones.
Perception is everything, and once formed is difficult to change.
This also links back to the "riding on footpaths" arguement - if it's called a FOOTpath then people on foot do not expect it to be used by MTBers or horsists, even if they are permitted by some legal/civil technicality (that most people aren't aware of, so may as well not exist).
If you're on a footpath & not on foot then, again, you're feeding the negative perception of MTBers regardless of how polite and reasonable you are, and regardless of how unjustified the perception may be.
It may have been formed unfairly, but perception is everything.
If we care enough to want these perceptions to change then sometimes we're going to have to bite our tongues. Or stop using contentious routes & 'cheeky' trails Or change our riding habits to minimise damage to the trails when they're soaked & muddy. And so on.
Or to look at it another way the unfair aspect is more down to the rights that walkers have gained in the first place. Arguably unfairly both in respect to other users and even against the wishes of the landowners. This wasn't something done as an act of kindness it was done through an act of civil disobedience.
Biting our tongues and keeping off them to avoid giving us a bad name any further does nothing other than keep the situation as it is. Some walkers will remain hating bikes. They moan about them when they see a bike off on a side trail that they never walk on. They moan when they're on legal cycle paths far away from the walkers. They just moan about bikes.
That won't change unless we do something about it.
Problem is many walkers are influential and some are in positions of power. All we've got on our side is Boris! (and that's just road bikes).
if it's called a FOOTpath then people on foot do not expect it to be used by MTBers or horsists, even if they are permitted by some legal/civil technicality (that most people aren't aware of, so may as well not exist).
It's the grant of a right, but does not imply everything else is denied. It doesn't require walkers to be aware of a specific local bylaw or technicality, it just requires them to understand what Public Footpath means. All they need to know is it gives them a right to walk there. Nothing else. They have no idea if a bike can or cannot be there. That's down to the land owner.
I refer back again to [url= http://www.friendsofthehurtwood.co.uk/ ]The Hurtwood[/url]. "More than 90 years ago, Reggie Bray, Lord of the Manor of Shere, granted the public a ‘right to roam’ with ‘open access for air and exercise’ on the Hurtwood – one of the first estates in England to do so. This set a pioneering example of a landowner welcoming the public on to his land and finding a way of working with the public that would benefit both the land and the people. Open access is available to bird watchers, dog walkers, horseback riders, mountain bikers and anyone who enjoys the fresh air!"
This is advertised fairly well, and most people are aware of it and happy with it, even though there are assigned Public Footpaths on the land, which again are still free access to bikes (with a couple of exceptions that are clearly marked).
What I like about the area is usually everyone gets on with each other, walkers chatting and joking with bikers and others. There are some moaners of course, but they're the ones that get their name in the papers having rants, not the ones actually out enjoying the countryside.
hehe, i ride where i want when i want, thanks..
joao3v16 - Member
The problem is, if a group of walkers has just one negative experience of an MTBer then some will adopt the opinion that all MTBers are just as bad.
Not that simple though... Because what some people see as completely reasonable can be seen by others as a "negative experience". So, you can pull over to the side of a path to let someone past and still get an earful. I once got shouted at by a walker who was climbing up hitsquad hill on Glentress red route once, that was good. And you can get told off for not having a bell, or told off for having a bell.
There's no path of zero resistance so it becomes a matter of degrees.
my opinion which is pretty worthless is ....
ill ride footpaths at night, after dark, after 6pm in summer etc etc...
ill try and avoid doing muddy rides on footpaths, as generally i can find something just as good without the slog, and to not add to the erosion where possible, sometimes this doesnt always go to plan though as i went to do a footpath last week thinking it would be dry, to find when half way through it was pretty much swampy.....funniest thing was, no other tyre marks were there (which would be clearly visible in said spot) and the muddy mess was caused by .....yep you guessed it walkers footprints....obviously a large group had descended/ascended on said footpath and it was buggered after.......
the reason i wont go back to it now is simply because it wont be much fun and i agree that going on it on a bike will cause wear/eroision/damage, but clearly from this experience alone the walkers are damaging it just as much... but
to say that cyclists do the most damage to trail is somewhat narrow minded and not true at all....
i still do try and be cautious/courteous and will not ride these mega cheeky things on weekends etc.....
night time/early mornings and weekend nights/early nights etc are fine in my experience....
have sometimes done the cheeky stuff in the heat of summer in the weekend days when its bone dry and done some stuff i wouldnt normally do in the day on footpaths, but when its running perfect, no damage can be done etc i couldnt resist... i tend not to make a habbit of that though!
ive come across some arses, ive come across plenty of nice walkers also...i just try and be friendly, and say hi, if they dont respond, nothing lost, if they do at least ive shown some courtesy to other users....
https://submissions.epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/3508
"Designating mountain bikes in the same category as horses is wrong and provides a barrier to the lawful pursuit of a healthy past-time. In many parts of the country there simply is not a legal network of trails open to cyclists, or too little to be meaningful. Cyclists should be allowed to use the footpath network to pursue the sport of mountain biking, this would help to promote activity amongst young people, especially as the roads become increasingly congested. Shared use of all paths and trails has been successful in Scotland and could be throughout the rest of the UK. It will spread the density of mountain bikers further reducing the potential for trail conflict and the (disputed) erosive impact of bikes on the trail surfaces. There are no costs involved (we don't need special gates or access) this is just a re designation exercise to make a bicycle an extension of a pedestrian on the footpath network (with the exception of roadside footways)"
Slightly OT, last night,I saw a police officer on a bike, skid-lid hi-viz etc, waiting for the green man. He was on the footpath, attempting to cross a main road. WTF is all that about?