Cheeky footpaths

Home Forum Bike Forum Cheeky footpaths

Viewing 12 posts - 41 through 52 (of 52 total)
  • Cheeky footpaths
  • johnellison
    Member

    What is your definition of “over using” FPs, and do you have a similar one for “over using” BWs? My point is that the difference is purely arbitrary as far as bike riders are concerned.

    I don’t have a definition, but you could argue that ANY use of a public footpath on a bicycle is over-use, since it is illegal.

    By that logic, I can argue that anyone using a bridleway in a motorvehicle is over-using it.

    johnellison
    Member

    But I’d have noted the individuals and the vehicle registrations and reported to the police.

    ^This – that’s threatening behaviour, threat of violence and threat to commit an offence (i.e. theft). Police should have been informed.

    Premier Icon aracer
    Subscriber

    you could argue that ANY use of a public footpath on a bicycle is over-use, since it is illegal.

    <sigh> You could, but I thought you agreed with my suggestion that that was an anachronism? If you’re going to accept it is reasonable to ride on FPs, why some other arbitrary limit?

    I could of course also nit-pick with you about the definition of “illegal”.

    johnellison
    Member

    I could of course also nit-pick with you

    😯

    Premier Icon miketually
    Subscriber

    the fact remains that currently, it is not legal to ride a bicycle on a public footpath

    you could argue that ANY use of a public footpath on a bicycle is over-use, since it is illegal.

    It is not illegal to ride a bike on a footpath. Public footpath status protects to rights of the public to walk on the line of the path. It does not make it illegal to ride a bike or a horse on the path.

    thomthumb
    Member

    use of a public footpath on a bicycle is over-use, since it is illegal.

    not illegal.

    you do not have a right of way.

    quite different.

    johnellison
    Member

    It is not illegal to ride a bike on a footpath.

    Quite correct, of course. I should have said that we have no right to cycle on public footpaths. An offence is only committed where local bye-laws or traffic restriction orders are in place whih specifically prohibit it.

    johnellison
    Member

    <double sigh>

    You could, but I thought you agreed with my suggestion that that was an anachronism? If you’re going to accept it is reasonable to ride on FPs, why some other arbitrary limit?

    Just because we feel that something is an anachronism doesn’t mean that we can ignore the consequences of going against it.

    I feel that the 70mph speed limit on motorways is an unjustified anachronism, because the car that I drive is capable of twice that speed and can stop a hell of a lot faster than the cars of fifty-odd years ago when the limit was introduced. But I choose to abide by what is expected of me because I am not prepared to accept the possible consequences of doing otherwise.

    Again, I agree with you that not having a right to cycle on public footpaths is an anachronism. As I have stated, I do it myself albeit rarely. I am prepared to accept the possible consequeunces of doing so.

    But the fact remains that just because we think that something is an anachronism, it doesn’t give us licence to act as we see fit if it inconveniences others.

    Premier Icon aracer
    Subscriber

    But the fact remains that just because we think that something is an anachronism, it doesn’t give us licence to act as we see fit if it inconveniences others.

    Right. So how does responsible FP riding inconvenience anybody? You still haven’t really explained where “over-use” comes in.

    Oh and for the motorway speed limit example you can have one of these

    Glad I live in a part of England which seems to have adopted Scotlands right to roam model. In 10 years of riding cheeky trails around Halifax, I think I’ve had ‘discussions’ about my right to be there about twice. Which is probably about the same number of times I’ve been stopped and told I have no right to be on bridleways!

    Premier Icon nuke
    Subscriber

    What I’m getting at is that some individuals over-use public footpaths and do not (or cannot) see the potential conflict with legitimate users; if anyone challenges them, they get on their high horse and start shouting the odds, which does the rest of us no favours.

    But the fact remains that just because we think that something is an anachronism, it doesn’t give us licence to act as we see fit if it inconveniences others.

    johnellison’s original comments fixed so aracer doesn’t need to nitpick all afternoon 🙄 😉

    compositepro
    Member

    I met the gamekeeper for north america some years ago (obviously could be a different one now). He blocked the trail, told me that the BW i was riding was a FP, claimed to be the landowner himself, then started throwing punches when I argued. A prize twunt all told. Luckily the ranger I had seen him talking to gave me his name to report to peak authorities and the local rozzers.

    Not sure he’d be going back to report that one to his boss: “I blocked a right of way, claimed to be you, then punched someone”.

    Was he scotiish and was he the keeper as theres also a guy wanders round up there with his border collie saying hes a keeper and also he sometimes plays a PNP ranger with a red coat on

    Last time i encountered him and his agressive attitude towards me on land that was’t his i wasnt polite

Viewing 12 posts - 41 through 52 (of 52 total)

The topic ‘Cheeky footpaths’ is closed to new replies.