[Closed] They're Back and this time it's just the same a last time.......

How dare people be outside, enjoying the countryside. Shocking, etc.

FFS.

give it a week and they'll be back to the pub/sofa/x box.

[parent mode]If you know you're riding illegally it seems a bit out of order to respond aggressively when they point out to you something you freely admit on here.
The long game of that kind of behaviour is we'll lose access IMO.
Personally I disagree with cheeky riding but if you're going to do it, IMO best to be inconspicuous and polite if asked to take responsibility for your illegal behaviour...[/parent mode]

The trick is a) not even slowing down or b) ride in Scotland 😀

So are only experienced walkers authorised to talk to you?

The cheek of some people. How dare they try and improve their health and well being.

I usually just shout naughty words while spitting my chewing tobacco at them. They seem to get the point then.

Get over yourself. You're where you shouldn't be, they're pointing out. If you can't take the heat...

Why cant people just all get along.

BTW a simple "it's my land" shuts most of them up.

Just stop and thank them for their public spirited attitude, ans as i did today, point out their crapping mutt should be on a lead, and that they need to clear up its pooh and dispose of the bag in a bin or take it home, both dog and pooh.

Strangely the ignorant walkerist/dogger,just swore at me.

BTW a simple "it's my land" shuts most of them up.

I have also tried the 'I am the landowner!!' gambit recently and it's a winner. So far. Probably not great when you are talking to the landowner. But still.

brooess - Member
[parent mode]If you know you're riding illegally it seems a bit out of order to respond aggressively when they point out to you something you freely admit on here.
The long game of that kind of behaviour is we'll lose access IMO.
Personally I disagree with cheeky riding but if you're going to do it, IMO best to be inconspicuous and polite if asked to take responsibility for your illegal behaviour...[/parent mode]

If it was not for people "acting illegally" there would be no walking access.

I agree with the OP, I love the public police who think it's their place to enforce the countryside law.

I got so fed up up the rightous dog walker whos mutt's eggs get everywhere, that the dogs attack sheep, dogs and other humans that they still feel the need to tell us cyclists what we are doing wrong.

Last year I ended up saying **** off but hated to being resorted to that level.

Grow some balls and accept your in the wrong. Then you can carry on enjoying your ride till the next time.Accepting you are in the wrong rather than trying to defend your actions will hopefuly help us all in the long run as we will be seen as people who can get along with each other rather than agrivate them.

Fair enough, most of the criticism - I think my rant was probably fuelled by annoyance at myself for getting agitated in the first place.

I actually forgot the bloke walking who warned me about some some Park Rangers (aka the Fun Police) so I wouldn't run into them. And about the woman who apologised for her dog being in the way when I shouldn't have been there. Obviously I was extremely polite to both of them and acknowledged my 'guilt'. Just goes to show that most people are quite relaxed, but it only takes one disagreement to lodge in the memory to cause a loss of perspective. Two days later and I couldn't care less.

Another one to chalk up to experience, then.

I usually tell them I only speak Polish

BTW, it;s not illegal to ride a footpath (except in certain places where a byelaw applies, such as the national park). "Footpath" just means that the right to pass [i]on foot[/i] has been proven, not that there is no right to ride a bike - it might exists but not have been proven yet. Your riding might help establish it

I have toyed with "je ne comprend pas, c'est interdit de faire du velo ici?", but I am not sure my GCSE French is correct, and would hate to be mistaken for a frenchman(!) 🙂

My German is worse, but I suspect would be more effective for some reason............

"Ein bike, ein rider, ein ride" delivered in loud tones with some foaming at the mouth and pointing would probably end the conversation quite quickly.

Been riding where I shouldn't for a very long time (when I say a long time I mean pre MTB days, where a pushbike fitted with cowhorn bars and the thickest tyres available up the top of kinder drew amazed onlookers rather than unwelcome gestures) .. Unless aggression is shown to me I always plead ignorance in a polite way.

If they're very rude.. I'm rude in return. If they're aggressive (that's only happened the once mind) I answer in kind.

Rule of thumb for me is that I ALWAYS show courtesy, slow down, give a smile and a thanks for people who I inconvenience along the way.

"I've been riding trails for over five years" - time served then? I'm a lot less new than you are? Absolutely no proof of how long the people in question have been using the outdoors. Just cos you ain't seen em before doesn't mean that they haven't been there. And the fact that the specific peeps in question seem to be duffers it may indicate that they could well have been out and about a lot longer than you. Or maybe not but in the end"we" just don't know. Not that the length of time you have used somewhere should be taken as meaning that you have free reign. Though of course one of the ways of getting a PROW approved is to establish long term passage by the great unwashed.

Have a pint of tea and give your self a talking to, you probably just had a bad day.

Your general point is right though , that the people who are the trails for whatever purpose through the bad weather tend to be ok and the ones who suddenly appear the nano-second that the sun comes out are the ones who are territorial .from being virtually deserted through the winter there were people queing up for ther stiles and getting grumpy

Why dont you do something positive like I am doing and engage the land owner to give permissive status to cyclists on the fotpaths that you ride.

So then you wont come on a forum ranting about yourself riding on illegal trails.

This thread appears to have been started by the sort of rider who gives cyclists a bad name ... no wonder cyclists get so much stick

rubbish the OP is completely right.

The long game of that kind of behaviour is we'll lose access IMO.

Access to what ? Bridleways big deal !

Its time we stepped up and demanded rights to use footpaths just like ramblers did back in the day.

Whats the reason we cant use footpaths ?

Whats the reason we can use bridleways ? How am I a 75kg person + 25 kg bike anything like a 500kg horse + 75kg rider ?

Clearly the bridleway rule was just made up because no one could be bothered with the expense of working out which trails are suitable for bikes (ie most of them). And at the time there wasnt many offroad cyclist to be bothered disagreeing.

Also the rights of way system isnt good to begin with. Often a Bridleway turns into a footpath for no obvious reason. Most of the ROW were just draw up on a definite map back in the day by one ROW officer and often they didnt put much thought into what type it should be. Also rich land owners tended to lean on them to remove ROW from their land and there werent even MTBs round then.

Seeing as the ROW system is so nonsensical I cant see there is much point sticking to it.

Why dont you do something positive like I am doing and engage the land owner to give permissive status to cyclists on the fotpaths that you ride.

Because quite clearly a person on a MTB is much closer in size and in potential damage to the trail to a normal walker. Than a MTB is to a horse and we should be classified with walkers not horse.

Therefore we should be able to ride footpaths unless they do a total reclassification.

This thread appears to have been started by the sort of rider who gives cyclists a bad name ... no wonder cyclists get so much stick

I thought this thread was started by someone who was in a bad mood and wanted a bit of a grumble, despite accepting he might be in the wrong. You're all so ****ing righteous.

Give cyclists access to footpaths petition

[url= http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/3508 ]Click here[/url]

My response is [b]erring[/b] towards "are you the landowner or appointed agent of the landowner, no? well f*ck off, then".

I think people are being a bit harsh on the OP. He did say erring towards... So as far as I can gather he normally bites his tongue and responds well and hasn't resorted to it. Given it's an internet rant, I don't see the issue.

I don't ride on Footpaths btw, but probably only because they're all crap round my way.

Just smile and say "i know" as u whizz by

scu98rkr - Member
Give cyclists access to footpaths petition

maybe this needs a thread of it's own? (maybe it already has?)

have signed!

db

e-petition signed!

i think it's worthy of its own thread

"Because quite clearly a person on a MTB is much closer in size and in potential damage to the trail to a normal walker. Than a MTB is to a horse and we should be classified with walkers not horse.

Therefore we should be able to ride footpaths unless they do a total reclassification."

Well it might be news to you, but we're not given the same classification and instead of moaning on a forum about it why dont you do something about it.

why not start a thread on a forum about it - that will get a result

I just posted the link to the e petition did nt I thats a good start have you signed it yet ????????????????????????????????

clearly what the e-petition is for?

e-petitions is an easy way for you to influence government policy in the UK. You can create an e-petition about anything that the government is responsible for and if it gets at least 100,000 signatures, it will be eligible for debate in the House of Commons.

People who don't like their lot are even more of a pain in the arse on a Monday and Hartleys pineapple jam is so good when mixed into steaming hot rice pudding are my lessons for the day.

maybe you should do more than think that the internet can solve your problems.

try engaging the people who own the land, you might get something out of it.

have you signed it yet ??????????

No, i'll not be signing it,

I prefer to spend my time working for rights of access with people who make decisions in the real world.

maybe you should do more than think that the internet can solve your problems.

try engaging the people who own the land, you might get something out of it.

But there is no "area of land" that I particularly want to access. I dont want to create trails in one particular forest.

I just want to able to ride in the countryside or even in town. There are plenty of trails out there which I believe should be available to us MTBers.

If you have different aims and therefore different methods from the OP and me you need to understand this and stop slagging people off.

Signed. And circulated to a whole load more to help keep momentum.

Sancho - Member
I prefer to spend my time working for rights of access with people who make decisions in the real world.

what you mean like parliament?

i'd like access for the hole of the uk, not just my local stuff...

I share your beliefs, except, Ive worked to ensure that cyclists and walkers have got the same rights now in Leeds, and Bradford, huge areas are accessible and cyclists are accepted on the "cheeky trails".
Bradford Council now gives the same rights of access to cyclists as it does to walkers.

so you can get the rights you want if you talk to the people involved.

go on give it a try, you might be surprised.

Oh I see what you want,

Well done Sancho !

i'd be interested to hear the whole story? if you have time maybe do a write up?

Well done Sancho !

Be sure to pat his head and give him a biscuit.

I share your beliefs, except, Ive worked to ensure that cyclists and walkers have got the same rights now in Leeds, and Bradford, huge areas are accessible and cyclists are accepted on the "cheeky trails".
Bradford Council now gives the same rights of access to cyclists as it does to walkers.

Well how ****ing selfish are you that you just kept it to your area? 😉

In all seriousness, well done and yes, let's here a bit of a "guide to doing it" if you have a moment to jot it down.

I did once contact a landowner.

There is a small ford here ->

[url= http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&q=Lands+end+ford+twyford&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=2427l3400l0l3492l8l1l0l7l7l0l229l229l2-1l6l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&biw=1230&bih=1050&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wl ]lands end ford[/url]

It currently can be crossed by horse/car and there is a footpath on a small bridge next to it.

Would be a great commuting (not mtbing) route between the villages on the edge of Reading.

I suggested the footpath to the bridge should be rerouted and classified as a footpath/cycleway I also wrote that it should be down at the edge of the field so as not to disturb the horses. The land owner said not happening.

I contact the local council who said a small budget would be coming up for cycling improvements and would get back to me but never did.

what do you suggest Sandro ? I can forward you the emails.

I also started this petition.

[url= http://www.wokingham.gov.uk/council/epetitions/ ]click here[/url]

I was also kinda offered the position of transport officer for twyford village partnership but I tend to have very busy periods at work and then very lazy periods (ie now)

[url= http://twyfordvillage.com/default.aspx ]click here[/url]

anyway what is your advice sandro ?

email to land owner + response

On 2 November 2011 13:12, Roger Robinson <scu98rkr@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Currently the Land End ford is accessible by car/horse across the ford and by foot across the foot bridge. However it can not be crossed on bike.

This is unfortunate as it would provide quiet safe route for cyclists from Hurst/Twyford to Woodley/Reading. Both Old Bath Road and Sandford lane are not great for cyclists as they are narrow and twisty nature makes it difficult for drivers to over take.

Im just wondering if you have any opinions on this ? I assume you own the field leading to the footbridge across from the centre.

It seems to me the best the solution to this dilemma would be to reroute the footpath and reclassify it as both a footpath and a cycleway. It would be rerouted such that it starts from near the field gate (opposite your centre) and proceed directly to the bridge. It could then be fenced off and walkers/cyclist would not need to walk though your field potentially disturbing the horses. As this would be fenced off from the horses the barrier to the footbridge could be removed allowing cyclist to cross as well as walkers.

Im just wondering if you would support a change in rights of way such as this given it would have the advantage to you that the public would no longer have direct access to your paddock ?

I include an image showing my proposed new footpath. The Blue line represents the current footpath, the red line represents the route of my suggested footbath/cycleway and the green line a possible fence to discourage the public from access your paddock.

If you were in favour of this change maybe we could approach wokingham council together with a local cycle access group to implement the changes on their transport/cycle access budget ?

Regards

Roger

Hi looking at your diagram there is no way it could work as i own the whole field and it couldn't be split as it would cause inconvenience due to no water in the small paddock and it wouldn't be viable to split the field as would cause problems with access.your best bet would be to get the council to put footbridge over the ford. regards Ian

email to council

Dear Sir/Madam,

Currently the Land End ford. Can be access by car/horse across the ford
and by foot across the foot bridge.

However it can not be cross on bike.

This is unfortunate as it would provide quiet safe route for cyclists
from Hurst/Twyford to Woodley/Reading.

Both Old Bath Road and Sandford lane are not great for cyclists as they
are narrow and drivers can be somewhat aggressive on them.

All that is needed is for the footbridge to be altered such that bike
handle bars can easily pass along it. To do this the railings could be
lowered and the entrance cleared.

Regards

Roger

Responce :

Dear Roger

Thank you for your email message. There are some plans to improve the
cycle routes in the Woodley/Twyford area - if the opportunity arises. I
will pass your request on to my colleagues in highways as they have been
looking into this.

Regards

Sue Griffin

I see what you are saying in those emails, well the good thing is that it dosent seem to be an out and out no, Im sure something can be done.

ill have a think tonight if that's ok

I'm not sure about my 'giving cyclists a bad name' as I have never done anything to make a situatin worse. The particular incident involved me saying (matter of factly) "I can still be here if I get off and walk" which I did, at least until they were out of sight.

It was more to do with wanting to let off steam - especially as I am too polite to really wade into someone at the first provocation. Still no harm done.

I really just cannot understand people who prefer to disrupt others' leisure activity rather than getting on with their own (which they are supposed to be enjoying). It's the same as golf club members who huff and tut when someone isn't wearing exactly the right clothing - that and the fact that the more relaxed golfers seem to actually be enjoying themselves rather than rucking about clothing regulations.

I suppose there is a bit of Colonel Blimp in all of us, just below the surface........

Sancho, do please elaborate? So you have helped secure equal rights for cyclists in Leeds and Bradford? Is this just council owned land, or might I naively presume something wider?

I've certainly noticed a significant tolerance to MTB'ers, apart from one bloke who moans about bikes in my local woods.

Isn't it amazing? People's attitude when caught doing something illegal. Yet we want everyone else to obey all laws. (car drivers, dog owners etc)

as per usual here in Dartmoor National Park... the walkers were delighted to see us yesterday..

one sour faced looking codger looked for a second like he was about to get his arse in his hands.. but we'd stopped to allow him right of way and at that moment we happened to be marvelling at the effects of water erosion on the trail after the heavy rains of a week or so ago.. pointing out where new rock was exposed or water run-off channels had cut a new line or created a higher drop..

he looked sheepish suddenly realising perhaps that he was punching above his weight with regards to taking an interest in trail welfare.. 🙂

Scu, do you have another image of the map, I couldnt see it other than a google map, that dosent show anything other than Bracknell.

Gingerss,
Basically when I chaired the Leeds City Council Cycle Development group, we decided (after a lot of debate with parks) that cyclists riding responsibly were to be tolerated on the "cheeky" paths going through the various woods in leeds including footpaths.
Also digging as specific sites like Adel would not be knocked down anymore as long as the ramps didnt become too big.
So four years on Adel is still intact and I dont know of anyone being prosecuted, etc,
Now how available this is in council documents web sites I dont know as the group isnt operating anymore, but I can speak to Parks and try get something written up and published. I think I still have the old contacts.

Bradford Council have taken a similar approach, and have funded sites like Thackley but most significantly they have given cyclists the same rights as walkers on the parts of Ilkley Moor that they own - so basically a right to ride every inch of moor.
however, in a responsible manner etc.
I have got agreement (waiting for the final wording) from the land owner for the surrounding moors to give permissive rights for cyclists on some of the paths leading to the Bradford owned parts of the moor.
in return for some volunteer help on maintaining some parts of the path.

Scu, I think first port of call is arrange a meeting with Su and make a site visit to discuss your ideas, then you and the council could propose something to the land owner.
Maybe council money and backing will help the argument.

Ed

Also try raise the idea of a permissive path, not requiring fencing off etc, I reckon the land owner will not want to spend a penny on changing anything

[i]I know I am in the wrong, but when I've been riding trails for over five years and some uptight, snobby old tart and her frankly beaten husband have a pop, it gets my goat.[/i]

Whenever anyone uses the word 'snob' they immediately loose any credibility for me.

Thats all.

dannyh, you come across as a bit of dick; and seem to be doing your best to make life harder for everyone else regarding access.

Isn't it amazing? People's attitude when caught doing something illegal

10 lines for you.

Riding on footpaths is not illegal.
Riding on footpaths is not illegal.
Riding on footpaths is not illegal.
Riding on footpaths is not illegal.
Riding on footpaths is not illegal.
Riding on footpaths is not illegal.
Riding on footpaths is not illegal.
Riding on footpaths is not illegal.
Riding on footpaths is not illegal.
Riding on footpaths is not illegal.

To get to point B from point A do what ever is required 😉

Great advert for the mountain biking community.

Riding on footpaths is not illegal.

No, but you don't have permission from the landowner to ride on them.

But some people think they can do whatever they like just because "it's not hurting anyone" ... 🙄

But some people think they can do whatever they like just because "it's not hurting anyone"

Yes if its really not hurting anyone yes. I'd rather do something thats illegal but morally right than some things thats legal but morally wrong.

Although obviously everything really is shades of grey no black and white.

Most stuff that is illegal does hurt people though. Some stuff that isnt illegal does hurt people.

I totally ride footpaths, and have had mates get the arse on my route choices, but I think riding with consideration wont hurt anyone and may enhance our image and stop a lot of the grief we can get when riding.

@ richc:

How do you think you 'come across' with this as your 'contribution'?

dannyh, you come across as a bit of dick

Well, that's not very nice is it? You obviously have the right to express this opinion - and so do I.

You 'come across' as an arsewipe and a witless one at that.

You have to ask yourself, however, what all this 'banter' has contributed to anything.

I'm leaving this alone now. I wouldn't want to enrage an intellectual colossus like yourself any further.

Plenty of miserable buggers out on sunday, didn't matter whether I was on a BW or a (suitable for winter riding) FP, everyone got a cheery "hello", a fair few said hi back but lots just scowled. Gorgeous day, everyone out enjoying themselves, why the sad face?

Although obviously everything really is shades of grey no black and white.

No it's not.

What exactly is the grey area in "you do not have landowners permission to ride on their footpaths"? ... seems pretty clear (i.e. black and white).

It's a shame some people can't undertake basic courteousy of not doing something they've been politely asked not to on someone elses property.

But, human nature is fundamentally selfish.

Plenty of miserable buggers out on bikes (Road) too, not one even acknowledged me in my Ron hills rocking the old skool

if i ride trails i shouldnt, i always wear my ipod . that way i cant hear what the moral majority say to me as i pass !! dont get me wrong i always holla nice things as i pass its just that with ear bud phones i dont know what they replay or how loud i holla!! 😀

t's a shame some people can't undertake basic courteousy of not doing something they've been politely asked not to on someone elses property.

[b]But, human nature is fundamentally selfish.[/b]

as evidenced by the truism that all property is theft

What exactly is the grey area in "you do not have landowners permission to ride on their footpaths"? ... seems pretty clear (i.e. black and white).

Well for one how do I know the landowner has nt given permission if there are no signs either way ? I can just as easily assume he has as I can assume he hasnt.

Also what do you mean the law is black and white ? The law is based on a serious of assumptions there is no black and white. These assumptions can not be 'proven', they are just there because they make society easier to run.

Unless you believe the current law is divinely inspired its clearly shades of grey.

Where is the justification that anybody should be able to own land at all ? Why should the term Landowner even have any meaning.

My assumption is because the society we have developed relies on these concepts to continue to function without turning into total anarchy.

Therefore why do footpath exist ? to give public rights of way and access to land that is not owned by them for the common good. Personally I see little difference between accessing it on foot as on bike.

I mean if someone decided to visit my garden with out damaging anything. I admit would be miffed but

1. How would I know they have done it ?
2. The cats/bird/dogs visit my garden all the time how is a person visiting different from them ?
3. What actual right to the land do I have more than them ?

The only thing I would say is I have a right to privacy. So if the person came too close to my house while I was in, their right to access would be imposing on my right to privacy.

It depends on the law as to which is more important. I think as most people want some privacy this has outed. Hence why society has decided wondering around other peoples gardens is a no-no.

But wondering around someones 100 acre estate is a bit different as generally your not affecting their privacy.

The cats/bird/dogs visit my garden all the time how is a person visiting different from them ?

😯

Errr... what?

Where is the justification that anybody should be able to own land at all ? Why should the term Landowner even have any meaning.

So, in your world/opinion people shouldn't be allowed to own land, therefore everyone's property is fair game? ...

wondering around someones 100 acre estate is a bit different as generally your not affecting their privacy

So it's ok to abuse access rights/privileges as long as nobody finds out? ...

So, in your world/opinion people shouldn't be allowed to own land, therefore everyone's property is fair game? ...

No in my opinion the current society we live in requires land owner ship, but we should try to increase access rights to the largest extent we can without intruding on other rights such as privacy.

So it's ok to abuse access rights/privileges as long as nobody finds out? ...

How can I be abusing their rights if they cant find out ? Exactly what rights are you on about ? Please tell me ?

I agree if I was on someones land went right up to their window and started waving in. I would clearly be abusing their right to privacy.

If I started playing loud music I would again be abusing this right.

If I broke their property and destroyed their land I could see I was clearly in the wrong (according to the law and morally).

If I come and go on their land and they dont even notice what rights am I going against ?

If I come and go on their land and they dont even notice what rights am I going against ?

So anything goes so long as nobody finds out?

And if everyone adopted this attitude, there'd be all that anarchy you referred to earlier:

My assumption is because the society we have developed relies on these concepts to continue to function without turning into total anarchy.

You seem a bit confused.

So anything goes so long as nobody finds out?

Where did I say that ? For instance I could of destroyed their property with out them finding out but it would be wrong.

What I said is basically people should have the freedom to choose what they do as long it does not harm other people this is pretty much the definition of a right in my book.

I know this is on a whole nother scale. But in other countries it is illegal to be homosexual ?

Just because its illegal there do you that is right ? surely the people has a right to be homosexual.

I ask again what rights of there's am I breaking if I pass through with out damage or notice ?

And if Im not breaking any of their rights why cant I be there ?

And if everyone adopted this attitude, there'd be all that anarchy you referred to earlier:

Rubbish this system basically exists in Scotland as TJ says its not perfect but its hardly anarchy