Oh, and the “aren’t there enough other trails” argument is mince.

The OP is conspicuous by his absence…30 odd responses & he hasn’t replied to any of them….

TROLL???

One of the areas I ride in had a vast expanse of moorland bridleway. Some bridleways are infact shooting access routes for landrovers, the designation of which changes to footpath, then back to bridleway. There are also some very good linking footpaths on which I have yet to see a boot print, let alone a walker.
All of which were originally cut by boot and hoof as trade routes and as access to the mines.

All fair game.

Similarly, there is a section I have walked down near the Tees which, in areas, would make some seriously sweet singletrack, but I do not use this as access and usage deem it not suitable.

Another argument which I have pondered over is woodland trails which are not designated at all. Chopwell woods for example has some good official fc trails. It also has some far better hidden trails. At what point did the now legal trails become accepted as they were once ‘cheeky’.

As title. Not only riding on footpaths but when they are in a wet condition is even worse. Pay some consideration for why it is a footpath and not a bridleway, plenty of decent bridleways in the country anyway. Not only are you eroding the path, you are creating a bad reputation for all your fellow mtb’ers. As a biker I feel a winging so and so for saying this, but lets be honest arent there enough decent areas to ride?

So blah aside, the problem with cyclists on footpaths is “trail erosoin”.

Trails erode. Thats what they do its just what happens to them, like cliffs erode, I don’t think mtb’ers ride on cliffs – were not that hardcore (yet). So to say that the ONLY reason not to ride on footpaths is that we might erode them in pretty much the same way as any other user or the elements is utter pish.

There’s been some interesting recent case law about the act of creating rights of way. (I studied it recently with the head of the caving society archives)

http://www.ramblers75.org.uk/pdf/Dorset-Case-Victory.pdf

If I can find an online copy of the appeal court finding (for anyone who has an interest in law) its interesting over turning of some very bad case law and reaffirming of some principles set by his godship, Denning.

EDIT: here we are. For the legal geeks:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200607/ldjudgmt/jd070620/godman-1.htm

Zulu-Eleven – Member

Footpath:

Bridleway:

Footpath:

Bridleway:

Do you get the point yet?
Is it that footpaths are shit to ride on but bridleways look quite good fun ?
Maybe we should stay off the footpaths 😕

Richard Fox of Fix the Fells, who spends his working life dealing with trail erosion, sums up: ‘Mountain bikers do not cause exceptional levels of erosion compared with people on foot, as long as they demonstrate some care and common sense.’
Care and common sense, then. Over to you.

and
http://www.imba.com/resources/research/trail-science/natural-resource-impacts-mountain-biking

And anyway, footpaths are fun 🙂

He replied on the first page.

What? With a smiley? Oh very succinct… 🙄

My only qualms about riding pretty much any trail are as follows:-

1) Will I got a bollocking if I get caught by the landowner?
2) Will I be trashing the trail by riding a bike along it due to prevailing conditions?
3) Will there be conflict with other legitimate users of the trail if I ride it?

If the answer is yes to any of these questions then I wont, on that occasion.
Although on other occasions I may though. 😉

I don’t really care about other users moaning at me, they’re easily dealt with. Personally, as others have already said, who decided track A is a footpath, yet track B is a bridleway. There’s some pretty tenuous definitions out there.

Pay some consideration for why it is a footpath and not a bridleway

Arbitrary classification and historical anomalies? I don’t see how this helps?

Most of the best rides are on footpaths up here in northern Scotland and nobody seems to mind. In fact compared to the Lake District where I lived before moving here 6 years ago it’s night and day. Walkers seem to expect to see MTBs up here and mostly stop for a quick friendly chat or polite word. The Lakes was usually filled with MTB animosity and a very anti-footpath sentiment (and usually from holiday makers rather than locals!) That said there is a lot of solid rock round here so impact is minimal but of course we should be bothered by damage and erosion so worth avoiding the more fragile footpaths in winter.

However the original post is far too much of a generalisation for the whole of the UK.

I’m not interested in the law, or other peoples opinions on this issue. I’ll ride where I like (within reason) and don’t really give a sh*t what other people think.
Personally I think Ramblers with ski poles and people pushing prams damage footpaths just as much (if not more) than bikers.

On the bridleways around my area we need to give way to walkers and horses if you are on a bike. So unless you ride a ‘bike only’ trail (which still doesn’t stop some numpty walking up it) we are the lowest level of acceptance on any right of way. Cars/Motorbikes/Buses/Taxis get the roads. Walkers get the footpaths/bridleways/etc. Horses get the bridleways. We get Bridleways and have to give way to walkers anyway. I met an Major type on a bridleway recently, map on string round neck, walking poles – shouted at his wife to stand her ground when they saw me approaching (which was not very fast) and linked arms across the not very wide trail. Damn it – when are we going to get a voice and raise our standing on some form of right of way above other users!! And don’t even get me started on pathetic cycle lanes on roads!!!! Most of them are useless and downright dangerous anyway……..Lots of walkers on bridleways today. Out in droves. I sometimes long for the bad weather so that there are less walkers out there. OK – Rant Off.

😥 And there was me thinking that those lovely green-signposted trails were especially for bike and me to hurtle down, wind in hair…

But honestly, just get out there, be sensible and have fun 🙄

If no one uses a footpath can I ride it? If a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it etc etc

Here’s me riding on a footpath today. Very sorry.

Most sensible riders avoid really wet stuff when it’s boggy as hell. But I for one will enjoy them when they’re riding well 🙂

Where we ride it is sometimes necessary to ride on some footpaths to connect up bridleways and other routes… If it’s a busy Sunday then we know which routes to stay away from to avoid too much contact with walkers and hikers. there also no point reacting to someone tutting or moaning at you ,it just spoils your ride…. I always try and say thanks and be polite to any walkers we come across, if they don’t like it that’s there problem and we’re long gone!

I don’t know where the **** thee OP lives but in East Lancs if we didn’t ride on footpaths, we wouldn’t be able to string a half decent ride together. Myself and the Starship did a ‘Derek Does Darwen’ ride yesterday almost entirely on footpaths. It were great

So, yeah… eff off basically. I’ll ride where I like thanks! Or should I be sticking to trail centres? 🙄

+1 mrlebowski

Well played troll.

LOL this is a great read and I am sure exactly what the OP wanted!!

We often ride around our local country park that has a mixture of footpaths, bridleways and tracks that aren’t even classed.

Somedays it’s fine, other days we got people moaning. We are always polite – unless spoken too in an un-polite manner and slow down when walkers are present.

The only one we don’t ride is the National Trust one unless it’s dark or really early – it’s great fun and a proper cheeky one.

However, the amount of dog eggs left on footpaths from the dog walkers is horrendous!!

Am I not supposed to ride on footpaths then ?
Why did no one tell me ?

My only qualms about riding pretty much any trail are as follows:-

Billysugger, I’m not reading all that.
Can’t you summarise it ?

things looked like they were trolling along nicely and then billysugers goes and makes a reasonable and valid contribution

as demonstrated by some of the paths round ‘ere that as they cross the border from Worcestershire into Herefordshire change from bridleway to footpath arbitrarily in the middle of their run

Some completely within Worcestershire which do that at the parish boundary – not like Worcestershire is exactly overburdened with BWs.

some paths I wont ride on round here before its dark just to avoid conflict with dog walkers. I dont need to ride the path during daylight hours so it would be churlish to do so, knowing that there’s bound to be a dog walker or grumpy oldie on it.

One obvious one we’ve discussed before (obvious because it has “no cycling” signs at each end) where I’d not necessarily only go on it in the dark, but I’d only ride it when I expected not to meet anybody – so midweek not in holiday season or at peak times. Was torn when taking mini-aracer for his first proper off-road ride last week – we came back that way on the road, as it was school hols so didn’t want to take the risk (in the event I didn’t see anybody on it as we rode past). It’s just such a nice track to ride to avoid it just because of the signs.

I was ALWAYS under the impression that bicycles were banned from being ridden on the footpath . The only exception is where footpaths have been {ridiculously IMO} designated dual pedestrian/cycle path.

<State the obvious>There’s no reason why all paths shouldn’t be open to bikes – a great way of increasing the use of the greenest form of (practical) transport on the planet and it would contribute to improving the populations fitness levels. There’s already provision to prohibit the use of bridleways to bikes if required so that could be easily extended to all paths. Make sense?</State the obvious>

Are you talking about pavements, ardit?

people pushing prams damage footpaths just as much (if not more) than bikers.

Guilty. Was at Formby Point yesterday, where bikes are specifically banned. I thought about the damage caused by Baby Nord’s pram and considered how ace it would be to ride a fat bike round there without leaving a trace.

in East Lancs if we didn’t ride on footpaths, we wouldn’t be able to string a half decent ride together.

West Lancs, there’s even less. From the M6 westwards, I reckon we’d be lucky to have a total of 2 miles of bridleway available to us.

My pet theory: There’s a reason why there are so many footpaths in Lancashire – when bridleways were created, the county council decided it would make upkeep the landowners’ problem and so designated everything as a footpath irrespective of its original usage.

Your not the person who had a pop at me yesterday are you??? 🙂

I was biking with the other half next to Eccup reservoir in leeds. Following the bridle path past the farm near the dam and we came up behind two walkers.

I waited patiently behind them for about 20 seconds hoping they would hear my wheels clicking after that, I asked politely if we could go past and the husband started having a go at me saying bikes should stick to the road. I replied informing him that he was walking on a bridleway and he refused this stating it was a footpath.

We got to the end of the small section which of course had a clear as day bridle-path sign so I’m sure I was in the right.

Granted it was narrow which is why i didn’t ride past them but it’s not as if we were rude or dangerous, people need to share the countryside instead of complain so much!

It’s a pity there’s no practical way of introducing the Scottish system down south – everything’s walkable, rideable (bike/horse) and motorised vehicles aren’t permitted anywhere except by the permission of the landowner. Apart from occasional issues of curtilage, we just don’t seem to get the anywhere like the same levels of conflict – admittedly we don’t have the same user density as a place like the Peak NP, but maybe it’s time for some of the interest groups to get together and make a bold proposal to change the whole approach to access?

I’d say bikers get a pretty raw deal as far as rights of way and trails are concerned. If you look at OS maps it’s not clear which footpaths or trails allow bikes, because many do (bridleways excepted). So someone should get on to them to signpost routes more clearly for bikers.

Moreover, where people believe a footpath could be opened up to bikers, they should get on to their local council to do something about it. I tend to go out walking more than biking and think there should be more open access for bikes.

(in the event I didn’t see anybody on it as we rode past)

that annoys me so much, aracer 🙂
Being a goodie-two-shoes, taking the road, but looking up at the track all the way along and seeing nobody on it the whole way! grrrrrr!

Well played troll.

Yep, single match – real skills

It’s a pity there’s no practical way of introducing the Scottish system down south – everything’s walkable, rideable (bike/horse) and motorised vehicles aren’t permitted anywhere except by the permission of the landowner. Apart from occasional issues of curtilage, we just don’t seem to get the anywhere like the same levels of conflict – admittedly we don’t have the same user density as a place like the Peak NP, but maybe it’s time for some of the interest groups to get together and make a bold proposal to change the whole approach to access?

I think one of the reasons you ‘get away with it’ in Scotland is much lower population density and even relative to that, lower NIMBY density.

Going to have a lot less people that have houses there because they can now afford a weekend retreat from the city and expect it to be everything promised in the brochure.

I know various people who rides motorbikes off-road in Scotland and despite not being allowed technically, they don’t have a problem finding places to ride off-road – as there’s either no one close enough to care, or those that are don’t.

And yes, I do think banning all motorvehicles is a very good step towards bicycles being next in line.

geebus – Member

I think one of the reasons you ‘get away with it’ in Scotland is much lower population density

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.

We got to the end of the small section which of course had a clear as day bridle-path sign so I’m sure I was in the right.

That’s my favourite! Nice little linking bridleway in the lakes, glorious summer day, but it’s a footpath on OS. band new, clear, bridleway signs either end. Got rather a lot of abuse for riding along it -very- slowly giving way to everyone and being careful not to get in anyone’s way!

Then you’re riding down really wide bridleways like you have a deathwish, with more than enough space for you and walkers even if a bus appeared by magic in front of you, the old married couples: Men instantly whooping, women tutting, men then quietly falling in line with their wives and complaining…

Pay some consideration for why it is a footpath and not a bridleway

Aside from what’s addressed already on the difference, the existence of public footpaths at all is thanks to an act of mass trespass by walkers who insisted they should be able to trample all over people’s own land and fields, regardless. Bridleways were a concession to horse riders by the walkers who’d rather they were all exclusive to themselves.

I was ALWAYS under the impression that bicycles were banned from being ridden on the footpath . The only exception is where footpaths have been {ridiculously IMO} designated dual pedestrian/cycle path.

If you’re talking about public footways, which are paths adjacent to a road (pavements basically), yes.

Public Footpaths, as in the ones that go off across fields, woodlands, etc. No. The designation of Public Footpath does not forbid cycles on them in any way at all. It’s definitely not illegal. All the designation provides is a guaranteed right to walk along it and prevents the land owner from blocking the path. Bikes are there purely at the discretion of the land owner. It’s an act of trespass to be there if the land owner says so, but it’s up to them to keep the bikes off their land and if necessary to prosecute them in a civil court.

And thus to the original poster (troll or ranting rambler perhaps?), why should we stay off footpaths if the land owner is perfectly okay with us being there? Example in my local rides round Surrey Hills. The designated Public Footpaths in the Hurtwood controlled area are all open access to bikes by permission of the land owners. With a couple of exceptions where signs are up saying No Cycling.

So Public Footpaths don’t = No Cycling.

Oh, and an army of ramblers some 20 strong with big heavy boots in the mud does more damage than the occasional bikes zipping through. Not that churning up mud is much damage at all. Ever seen a path that’s disused for a few weeks? Goes back to nature.