Subscribe now and choose from over 30 free gifts worth up to £49 - Plus get £25 to spend in our shop
@Chipps hitting the nail square on the head:
This lack of understanding of the capabilities of modern bikes (and modern riders) can lead to things being done in our name, but without any knowledge of what bikes can (and would like to) do. So we get tracks ‘improved’ so that the annoying rocks are removed and we get trails like the bridleway off Dollywagon Pike which was resurfaced as basically a stone staircase with wheel-sized waterbars, usually on a hairpin. This was because the folks doing the work didn’t for a minute think that anyone would want to, or would be able to, ride that bit of hillside, despite it being a bridleway, purely because they couldn’t see themselves ever doing it.
So, I’m afraid it is worth getting involved in some level of advocacy, just so that we can explain why we don’t want bus shelters and fast 90° turns in bike lanes, or why we actually find the bumps and rocks on a trail a challenge rather than a hazard.
Until town and country planners know what you can do on a bike, we’ll never get the bicycle shaped world we want.
Please - get involved, even if peripherally, in your local active travel group. It's far too easy for the voices of those who oppose cycling to be heard.
I've just applied to work with a local volunteer group overseeing the condition of CRoWs hereabouts. They do have a bad habit of putting 'no bikes' discs on way markers but I'll turn a blind eye to any of those that go missing. A short of fifth columnist.
I've just applied to work with a local volunteer group overseeing the condition of CRoWs hereabouts. They do have a bad habit of putting 'no bikes' discs on way markers but I'll turn a blind eye to any of those that go missing. A short of fifth columnist.
Change from the inside - that's the way to do it!
I can agree on the cycle lane points, as they are bike specific, but I don't think we can lay claim to demand obstacles are left on a bridleway - it's not bike specific and can be used by other users.
Kind of like motorists demanding roads are made faster because modern cars are better, to the detriment of cyclists, pedestrians etc. We run the risk of becoming the bridleway equivalent of Jeremy Clarkson.
Bridleways are often made faster when features are removed, to the detriment of other users.
In my experience most BW improvements have made them more dangerous.
Yes, they're either made much faster for bikes (which endangers other people) or are resurfaced with loose chippings on a slope, which presumably the horsey people aren't hugely chuffed about either.
Isn't the legal requirement that BW's are passable on horseback, they don't have to be passable by bike, we're just allowed to be there.
The trouble with that is a rocky track off a mountain pass that surfaced a century ago (or just survived as a natural surface through limited use) is now a rocky mess that's impassible to horses. So unless the rules are changed so that "resurfaced as basically a stone staircase with wheel-sized waterbars, usually on a hairpin" suitable for horses isn't the standard improvement which would amount to an de-facto ban on horses from some areas. It's not an actual ban on horses, just removing the requirement to make places accessible. Then we're stuck.
It's a bit like the FP debate, in a lot of ways it would be better to just allow more access to horses and bikes, but then accept that the paths aren't maintained, or if they are then it's in whatever way the landowner wants to.
Isn't the legal requirement that BW's are passable on horseback, they don't have to be passable by bike, we're just allowed to be there.
Yes, I think the side issue is that half-arsedly resurfacing a slope with pea-sized gravel isn't going to be horse-friendly or bike friendly (or weatherproof for that matter). I'm not sure there is necessarily a conflict between retaining technical trail features (which keep bike speed down, ultimately, reducing the consequences of collisions) and having things passable by horse.
It's a bit like the FP debate, in a lot of ways it would be better to just allow more access to horses and bikes, but then accept that the paths aren't maintained, or if they are then it's in whatever way the landowner wants to.
That's a good point, but outside e.g. the PBW are how paths are surfaced/maintained now regulated by anyone?