[Closed] Why Cycling should be allowed on footpaths in England, Wales and NI.

More off-road routes available, potentially meaning that more journeys can be made avoiding roads

Encourage more people to cycle, fighting obesity

Spread out cyclists across the whole network, less conflict on busy bridleways

Economic benefits for areas where there are few bridleways, cyclists passing through spend money

Allows riders more choice and so can avoid trails where conditions are unsuitable (not a consideration of the current access system).

Better for horseriders by removing cyclists from bridleways as well as walkers.

Makes cycling more accessible for all, less dependant on car travel to a riding location.

Less horse poo in my face.

It shouldn't

Access should be determined on a case by case basis.

Ie no access to boggy slogs for anyone but more access to more suited trails

Ie no access to boggy slogs for anyone but more access to more suited trails

That would rule out the Emerald Isle then 😉

Better for the environment. Improved access by bikes means walkers could ride to the start of their walk instead of driving, this reduces pollution, congestion, and visual impact on the countryside.

mikewsmith - Member
It shouldn't

Access should be determined on a case by case basis.

Ie no access to boggy slogs for anyone but more access to more suited trails

I know, I know, it's one of those philosophical debates in which you adopt a right-wing/left-wing position depending upon how much influence you think the state should wield.....

A significant number of people ignore the current rules anyway.

If it were allowed, then the people who get upset about people riding where they shouldn't wouldn't, which would make them happier and they could focus their rightous indignation on other more important things instead.

Simplifies laws
spreads wear - reduces erosion
opens up access
provides extra users for underused paths (mid Wales)
Helps keep paths clear of undergrowth
increases pressure on uncooperative landowners
brings us into line with France, Scotland and possible the rest of the world - why do we need so many classes of access?

Increased longevity of tyres due to reduced road mileage as part of everyday rides.

As above. Cyclists can adapt to using footpaths in their existing form - with no reconstruction required. Roots and rocks are a welcome challenge, and styles are only a minor inconvenience.

Horses on the other hand should have to stick to bridleways. They need wider paths, and can't negotiate twisty, enclosed or technical stuff very well. When wet, they also churn up the paths massively.

If and when this is actually formally proposed and presented to whatever organisation, it may be worthwhile distinguishing mountain bikers from horse riders with a some photographic evidence of trail erosion after say 10 passes by a mountainbike, and 10 passes by a horse.

I don't think we do want to distinguish anyone from anything, we just want cyclists to be able to ride on footpaths if they want to with no changes required to the footpaths, gates, stiles etc, horses will always have a problem with stiles.

So, because walkers and cyclists have different rights, they are seen as different by each other, by having the same rights they will be seen as the same and so everyone will live happily side by side.

As someone else pointed out above, cyclists are just ramblers with wheels.

and styles are only a minor inconvenience

my style is a major inconvenience 🙁

From the point of view of a mountain biker the current RoW situation in England and Wales is a complete mess, with no consistency or logic behind current designations. The current network of legal RoWs for mountainbikers is inadequate and restrictive in almost all areas. Riding bikes is good, so more places to ride would be a good thing, right?

The cheapest and easiest way of fixing this problem is simply to allow people to ride bikes on footpaths [i]without requiring any alteration to those paths or any changes to priorities, etc[/i].

I would expect any other method of addressing this issue to fall short because of the complexities involved. There would be a lack of consistency of application across different authorities, due to differences in interpretation of any guidelines set out, and due to lobbying from established outside interests. Authorities would tend to misinterpret the real needs and desires of mountainbikers, which are minimal - we don't need surfaced cyclepaths, or gates instead of stiles, or good, well-maintained hardpack surfaces, indeed we actively don't want those things: that's why many of us already ride footpaths "illegally" instead of sticking to frequently tedious resurfaced motorway bridleways. Any attempt to reclassify some but not all footpaths for mountain bike use would most likely result in a network of trails little different from what we already have today. And most riders would in that case just carry on breaking the law and riding footpaths, so we'd be back to square one, but millions of pounds out of pocket.

So: if we agree that the current situation is suboptimal and needs changing, and we agree that especially at this time of limited resources the cheapest viable option is probably the most desirable, the best thing to do is just let us ride footpaths.

cyclists are just ramblers with wheels

I resent that assertion, but I would be willing to pretend to get access to footpaths. Now, where did I put my red socks?

The law restricting us dates from 1968 - long before the advent of mountain biking - and as such is long overdue for revision. It's as outdated as the red flag rule for motoring !
Putting bikes and horses in the same category is clearly daft - completely differant requirements and effects on the ground.

However would all riders behave responsibly if restrictions were lifted - minding the conditions and being considerate to walkers. Knowing what you are doing is "cheeky" is no bad thing IMHO

remember we are trying to talk about the benefits of allowing cyclists to use footpaths, which can then be used to balance out the cost of doing so, lets not go looking for problems or reasons not to just yet 🙂

Has anyone ever actually been prosecuted for riding on a footpath?

Or we could simply rely on people being responsible and avoiding trails where damage would likely occur.

Have you met the t**ts in here?

TBH the current system is a complete mess, there are many cases of footpaths becoming bridleways at parish boundaries, often because the local landowner didn't want horses on "his" paths.

As mrmo says, at present here are large parts of the rights of way network that just don't join up, leading to underuse and neglect.

The current inability to promote riding on footpaths means that there's a shadowy world of mate's trails, exchange via forums, word of mouth etc. So people are still riding these routes, but lack of official promotion limits the people who benefit from it to a handful of experienced cyclists.

In the case of somewhere like Wales, off road cycling could be much more of a draw for tourism and benefit to the economy if advertised leisure or event routes could include quieter footpaths.

The pressure on bridleways leads to more conflicts between the needs of equestrians and cyclists. Or to put it more simply, we like rough rocky trails, they don't. It would be much easier to deal with the loss of the odd techy bridleway if we knew that the footpath network was open to us as well.

I disagree with Christhetall on the responsibility point - at present, there's little incentive to behave responsibly apart from the (very remote) possibility of a slap on the wrist or a stern tutting-at.

my hubby was attacked on the canal today some rasta drunken sod, just linking up his bike route via a canal the druken fool swung his beer bottle at him and it bounced off the bike.... lets say the drunken fool will be having an afternoon nap in the sun.. 😉

Simply: it works just fine in Scotland, which disproves 99% of The Ramblers objections.

If we are allowed on footpaths there'd be no thrill of a cheeky route 🙁

Don't you live in Warwickshire or something RD? In which case, I can see why you need additional thrills. 😉

If we are allowed on footpaths there'd be no thrill of a cheeky route

Is the thread title not clear enough or somthing 🙂

When I am out locally no has ever said anything when I am on footpath although I don't use them that often. There is a general acceptance from most folk that bikes use them and most have no problem with it.

To me a right of way is a right of way and it should not make any difference if you use it on a bike or on foot.

elaine anne - Member

my hubby was attacked on the canal today some rasta drunken sod, just linking up his bike route via a canal the druken fool swung his beer bottle at him and it bounced off the bike.... lets say the drunken fool will be having an afternoon nap in the sun..

Sure it was a beer bottle?

Might it have been.......

wait for it.............

a Jah?

Sorry. 😐

Did 47 miles today, and I guess about 5 miles of that were on footpaths - don't see a problem.

When I am out locally no has ever said anything when I am on footpath although I don't use them that often. There is a general acceptance from most folk that bikes use them and most have no problem with it.

For years as a teenager/student I didnt realise you werent meant to ride on them.

But I rode more locally in the day/evening then, rather than saturday midday when I imagine most of the issues happen.

I assume that this also includes extending the useage of RB's and BW's etc to motorised vehicles.

"There is a general acceptance from most folk that bikes use them and most have no problem with it."
I beg to differ . I would suggest that that is your perception of how people things. The principle of assumption is wrong.

"To me a right of way is a right of way and it should not make any difference if you use it on a bike or on foot."
See my post above

"There is a general acceptance from most folk that bikes use them and most have no problem with it."
I beg to differ . I would suggest that that is your perception of how people things. The principle of assumption is wrong.

In tourist/rambler areas/some areas of the south east there is conflict on Weekends/bankholiday and occasionally on a normal weekday.

90% of footpaths are just randomly scattered around the country and are barely ever walked on never mind riden on. In all of these cases there are very few conflict issues. Especially in the evenings.

I live near Reading and the only time I've ever had a problem is on the Thames path but even then most people dont seem to mind you cycling it if your careful.

went for a walk with my mum and wife the other weekend.

This footpath [url= http://www.streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?x=415592&y=310775&z=120&sv=415592,310775&st=4&ar=y&mapp=map.srf&searchp=ids.srf&dn=707&ax=415592&ay=310775&lm=0 ](click here)[/url] didnt even exist. There was just a footpath sign pointing directly across a full field of wheat.

This bridleway [url= http://www.streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?x=416449&y=312095&z=120&sv=416449,312095&st=4&ar=y&mapp=map.srf&searchp=ids.srf&dn=707&ax=416449&ay=312095&lm=0 ](click here)[/url] was great to walk down ! But the trees and vegetation were so close in you'd never get a horse down it. A cyclist would only just fit in places.

Between Uni/Job I was trying to explore as much of my local area as possible (bike/walking). decided to go down this footpath [url= http://www.streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?x=412531&y=306650&z=120&sv=412531,306650&st=4&ar=y&mapp=map.srf&searchp=ids.srf&dn=707&ax=412531&ay=306650&lm=0 ](click here)[/url]. I couldnt find the start I was told by the owner of the house (fairly friendly guys didnt try to stop me) that it didnt exist anymore ! Which to a certain extent was true.

There are many many many footpaths that could be available to cyclist which would never bother anyone !

One of my very favourite cheeky rides includes a footpath which hardly exists, can't get onto one end of it legitimately as its lost. The common walked path has migrated 100yrds to the west. Makes for entertaining exchanges with the Red Sock Gestapo when I do the other run through those woods which does use the common walked path...

"This is a bridleway, you shouldn't be here"

"This isn't a public footpath, [i]you[/i] shouldn't be here either"

"Yes it is"

"Got an OS map on you?" [of course they do, its hung round their neck] "See? The public footpath is over there. Tell you what, you don't tell anyone, I won't tell anyone."

#cue speechlessness...

Is there anyone we can lobby or email during the consultation process for Wales??

http://singletrackworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/open-access-for-wales/

Write, tell them your views...

Not MTB specific but one point could be that bringing urban fringe/extra-urban footpaths into shared use is a way to reduce traffic congestion for short runs to the shops/into town and encourage commuters - linking footpaths to bridleways expands the catchment for safe off-road cycling.

In terms of social inclusion it provides better links for children/teenagers and adults who cannot afford to/cannot drive a car by providing safe alternatives to riding on often busy roads - I'm thinking particularly of smaller towns/villages where you have to hack along a narrow road if you want to cycle or wait for the two buses a day. Not an MTB issue but grandma on her boneshaker is more likely to cycle over to the next village if she can go via footpath rather than play with the lorries.

Value of cycling to economy could be invoked - wider use of footpaths will likely lead to a larger cross section of society riding and greater sales of bikes, equally don't want to oversell this as growth is also a threat to some user groups.

will think some more

Don't you live in Warwickshire or something RD? In which case, I can see why you need additional thrills.

Used to, not anymore

Who amongst us doesn't ever ride on footpaths?

Certainly in the West Lancs and Greater Manchester areas there are so few bridleways that cyclists do, and always have done, ride on footpaths.

I can't remember the last time somebody objected, it was possibly sometime in 1991.

I [url= http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/welsh-assembly-consultation-on-opening-row-to-cyclists ]posted[/url] about this a few weeks ago.

Bear in mind its only at initial consultancy so it'll go through at least several iterations before wider consultation, so details are obviously lacking - they're just sounding people out first.

I don't think they're saying "you will be able to ride on any footpath" but "you will be able to ride on [i]some[/i] footpaths". Which paths they will be? Your guess is as good as mine, but presumably they would need to be reasonably convenient for your everyday biker to use (yes, wide and flat) and, again presumably, they will need to link villages so will follow dismantled railways / widened road verges / etc. This ties in with the Bills general objectives to increase general health and wellbeing, getting people out on bikes, etc.

I think MrSynthpop has it spot on and this is precisely what the Bill is hopefully going to achieve. How its implemented I'm really not sure, but I suppose at some point in the next two years I'll be asked to figure it out 🙂

I recognise the need for simpler RoW legislation, but its an extremely complicated area; you can't just put your hand into the bag and pull out a few laws you don't like, as in 10-20 years you [b]will[/b] end up with repeats of things like Bridleways turning to Footpaths at parish boundaries, people buying houses and not knowing theres a path going through the garden, and so on.

I think the next year will be fairly interesting for the MTB community as the WAG [i]may[/i] open up the FP network to bikes, as its simply the easiest way to implement the Bill without having hundreds of conditions / caveats.

Feel free to ask any RoW related questions BTW

[i]Who amongst us doesn't ever ride on footpaths?[/i]

Not me. Found a nice little joiny up FP yesterday near Leighton Reservoir above Masham, seen it on the map years ago but never tried it. It's a vehicle track to get to the grouse butts & I'll probly use it again.

I think the next year will be fairly interesting for the MTB community as the WAG may open up the FP network to bikes, as its simply the easiest way to implement the Bill without having hundreds of conditions / caveats.

Woohoo!

*opens new pack of crayons for writing letters to MPs with*

would immediately give more options to cyclists to get away from some of the most dangerous roads with no infrastructure cost

eg near me footpath parallel to A57 Sheffield / Ladybower rd that runs from Strines road and links to Bridleway at Cutthroat bridge

footpath from end of Roman Rd descent that runs beside conduit and takes you to the bottom of the Beast again avoiding the A57

i'm sure there must be more

antigee - they are a couple of good calls, there are plenty more I can think of just into the white peak - it would open up some long rides with no linking by road.

antigee - I think you've foreseen a key risk of the law changes here, that the availability of safer alternatives will result in cyclists being restricted from using some roads.

I realise I am totally alone but I don't think they should. I'm not a walker, recented it whe
I had to do it to get to climbs. However, I do think those that do and choose to do it do have the right to know they are on a path that will not be occupied by horses or me on my bike. Let's be real, I have risen past many walkers on bridle ways who I know have been inconvienienced by my rattling past. It bugs me when they tut or comment cos I have the right to be there, if they don't want to share a right of way with me use a footpath. Also, again I'm alone I suppose, spent a lot of time in the Scottish hills, the landscape and usage their is significantly different to England so ' it works in scotland ... ' doesn't equate to me. Sorry, just my opinion.

I do wonder of some trails would be easier to walk with a bit more traffic. Loads of rights of way just don't show up at all and are over grown

I went off roading with a mate in Wiltshire once. We drove a 20 mile Bye way goinf grom no where to no where. I feel certain without vehicles using it the bushes would have closed over and nothing walker, bike or horse would ever get down it again

More people in the country side deters crime, particularlt at night

csb - Member
antigee - I think you've foreseen a key risk of the law changes here, that the availability of safer alternatives will result in cyclists being restricted from using some roads.

sadly a dangerous truth - i've experienced the "you shouldn't be on here there's a cycle path" argument first hand but counted my self lucky enough to ride sufficiently defensively not to have got hurt

would like to think what should be achieved is an overall increase in the number of cyclists and a more pleasant experience for families - the current debate about safe off road alternatives is "dangerous" in that it doesn't emphasise driver responsibility

personally i'm ok riding on the A57 - but i wouldn't ride it with my kids and I would like the option of a nice route in the country rather than tarmac, litter and stacked vehicles desperate to get past

I think there are a lot of paths which just aren't suitable for cyclists. mainly a dangerous to other users but also erosion, but then again there are a lot that are and should be changed to bridleways.

The main problem in my eyes is that there are to many cyclists who just aren't respectful or sensible enough.

Singlespeed shep

surely this is about the right to enjoy are great countryside? Lets not legislate for a few cyclicts and walkers who cause issues. Lets live together, one planet.

Being Scottish and now living in rural Hampshire I can see the effect of both sides of the argument.

I think it will have to come down to local discretion. If there is a long distance walking route maintained by the council etc, it should be open to MB. As is the case, all BW's should be open to MB but the grey area comes down to footpaths, especially around here.

Most footpaths cut across fields which may mean damaging crops or scaring cattle. The biggest thing that would worry me though is in the shooting season it sounds like the Somme around here. Shooting syndicates know where public access routes are but they will be less likely to be bothered if you are on a bridleway (the horsey types are one of them).

I've grown up riding wherever and whatever path I want. All it takes is a little consideration, a smile and a polite "hello" and everything should be ok. If that doesn't work, match their rudeness and do the same back. Feels great and they dont like it!

there's some quite interesting information in the PDF here regarding erosion, perception of walkers & horse riders:

http://www.tomgeraghty.co.uk/2010/09/15/mountain-bike-erosion-and-trail-use-study/

Fairer allocation of limited resources and application of lifestyle trends to those resources. Promotion of a hobby that can generally be regarded as 'good' for the individuals taking part (and the country as a whole - i.e you don't get many obese mountain bikers). I'd also like to see a relationship between subsidy and public access to agricultural land.

see - http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/access/rightsofway/prow/default.aspx

I ride 'sensible and polite' cheeky all the time, no real issues, I'd suggest less than 1% of people know the law (or actually care).

If everybody(bikers) was polite, smiled, shouted hallo (or bike behind or ting ting etc),slowed down and 'worked' with the other user types so that meetings were pleasant I'd like to think that would help our case (even when confronted by loonies).

Singlespeed shep

surely this is about the right to enjoy are great countryside? Lets not legislate for a few cyclicts and walkers who cause issues. Lets live together, one planet.

Yes I fully agree. but it has to be thought out and done sensibly. especially in areas that attract large volumes of people.

I'm going to sound all silly now but bear with me. In a lot of way market forces, some version of it will come into play.

Someone mentioned fields above, unless there is a well worked packed down path by a field (usually round the edges), field as BALLS to ride, there are BW across a few near me, having made the decision to ride them once, never again. Like wise badly eroded areas are often poor riding, and also many cyclists are aware of this issues and will avoid in poor weather, or just most of the time. Large numbers of people are also a deterrent for me. On Bank Holidays etc I always go further out of town and avoid the Nidderdale Way. I don't think I'm alone in making riding choices like this...

Lets not legislate for a few cyclicts and walkers who cause issues. Lets live together, one planet.

Unfortunately legistlation usually trys to account for those that cause issues and legislate against them, at the expense of the more responsible sensible users who really don't need the legislation in the first place.

I do wonder of some trails would be easier to walk with a bit more traffic. Loads of rights of way just don't show up at all and are over grown

I went off roading with a mate in Wiltshire once. We drove a 20 mile Bye way goinf grom no where to no where. I feel certain without vehicles using it the bushes would have closed over and nothing walker, bike or horse would ever get down it again

This is a very valid point, increased usage can not only cause errosion but also have a positive effect of helping keep the RoW clear, open and passable. Since NERC and the 'down grading' of RUPP's to RB's there are a significant number that were easily passible by anything from a walker to a 4x4 that have now become virtually impassible even due to over growth due to lack of use. The less use it gets the more over grown it gets, the more over grown it gets the less use it gets.

Would you accept a law that made it legal to ride on a foot path if it also became illegal to ride where there is no right of way? Without prior permission of course.

I think there are a lot of paths which just aren't suitable for cyclists. mainly a dangerous to other users but also erosion, but then again there are a lot that are and should be changed to bridleways.

A lot of contentious spots are already the subject of byelaws prohibiting cycling. Keeping a footpath a footpath in the absence of any other prohibition is a useless way of dealing with an issue, because there's no method of enforcement aside from the landowner asking the trespassing parties to leave.

I'd also agree with the poster who pointed out that cyclists do not "run people over" and survive unscathed, in the way that motor vehicles do. They are two vulnerable user groups and aside from the possibility that one may be wearing a helmet, there's a very similar risk to both.

decided to do a gentle ride with my wife on Saturday. We were out from about 11 to 2.

We got to Henley and wanted to get to Wargrave or Sonning.

Imo the road between Henley/Wargrave is very cycle unfriendly so went down Thames path(footpath). Obviously busy in a couple of places so we just walked these bits (ie the henley lock).

But between Shiplake and Sonning there were actually more cyclists than walkers ! And these were nt MTBer this were mainly young couples there was 1 group of 6 ! (think they may have been students at Reading Uni).

Does seem like the current ROW regulation doesnt really meet the needs of the users to me !

Schnor, out of the current FP network what proportion would you say is covered by byelaws prohibiting cycling? Down here in the South West I'd say it's about 1%, but covers the most contentious areas - e.g. the Downs in Bristol.

As an aside, has anyone else found the quality of a lot of BWs in Wales to be extremely variable? I did an off-road E2E with Singletracksurfer recently (a new route, not the 24 hour record one) and was struck by how many BWs are marked on a map but don't seem to exist on the hill.

I'd like to see the different non-car users joining up to look after each other and sharing routes. Although weight of maintenance may cause some arguments. However, our society may not be ready for it as people are regressing their societal responsibilities.

I, as a cyclist, am annoyed at the plonker who crashed into the back of me whilst I was walking on the pavement last week, where he failed to acknowledge the injury to my right hand I suffered on his bars as he rode off from teh scene of the accident. I'd have moved to the side to let him through if I had received warning from him, knowing the congestion on that road that leaves me using the pavement from time to time. I personally make noise to create awareness for pedestrians, slow to a crawl, or get off when necessary. I don't run them down. This is why it'll never work.

scu98rkr, the Thames Path seems like a right dog's dinner. I've encountered some aggro on there before on a section we were perfectly entitled to use.

Would you accept a law that made it legal to ride on a foot path if it also became illegal to ride where there is no right of way? Without prior permission of course.

I have no idea why that would be relevant to a discussion about the merits of allowing cycling on footpaths?

There is absolutely no point in talking about bits of trail here, bits of trail there and whether they are viable routes or not, that way just leads to "getting lost in the weeds" (or nettles and brambles).

Schnor, out of the current FP network what proportion would you say is covered by byelaws prohibiting cycling? Down here in the South West I'd say it's about 1%, but covers the most contentious areas - e.g. the Downs in Bristol.

In my county (in N.E. Wales) I can think of only two bye-laws - both requested by the local parish council a few years ago - and a few TRO's in the town centre, so its maybe 2km (which isn't enforced BTW) out of ~870km. So if I had to guess nationally, it would be less than 1%.

The above comments show quite well that even amongst a distinct user group like ours there are plenty of differing opinions.