Following on from this thread http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/ramblers-shared-use-policy?replies=48

Thought it might be interesting to “crowd source” all the reasons why cycling on footpaths might be a good idea.

In the tradition of corporate brainstorming can I suggest that we try to leave any debate on the relative merits of any suggestions alone for now (I know that’s a tall order on here…) but let’s just focus purely on the positives that allowing cycling on footpaths might bring, all ideas and thoughts on why it’s a good idea are welcome 🙂

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

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 without requiring any alteration to those paths or any changes to priorities, etc.

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 (click here) didnt even exist. There was just a footpath sign pointing directly across a full field of wheat.

This bridleway (click here) 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 (click here). 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, you 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??

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