Jump to content

Cycling on Public Footpaths


mongoose39uk

Recommended Posts

Recently I have had a couple of problems with people cycling on public footpaths.

 

One was while doing Wickers Hike where basically the path is being destroyed in some areas by people cycling. I also had to get out of the way of two chaps coming down the hill as I was staggering up it. That said they were pleasant and greetings were exchanged.

 

The second was today. I was out maintaining some caches when I bumped into John one of the Countryside Rangers when mention was made of cycle tread patterns being seen. Time to keep my trap shut as I had seen logs on my caches up the path were a recent visitor mentioned having cycled there.

 

For the most part the route is on Bridlepath or in areas where cycling is accepted. However this area was not and the no cycling attribute had been used on the cache page. The path is rarely used and is very fragile.

 

There are plenty of places to cycle, all I ask is that we show some respect both to the people who use the path and to the landowners.

 

Public footpaths

 

Public footpaths can be used by walkers and this includes wheelchair users and those pushing prams or pushchairs. As with all public rights of way, you may also take a dog, although you may need to keep it on a lead or otherwise under close control on some paths.

 

There is no right to ride a pushbike along a public footpath, although individual landowners may permit cycling on some routes which are public footpaths e.g. certain sections of canal towpath in the care of British Waterways.

 

Thanks for taking the time to read this

 

Cheers

 

Tony

Link to comment

Recently I have had a couple of problems with people cycling on public footpaths.

 

One was while doing Wickers Hike where basically the path is being destroyed in some areas by people cycling. I also had to get out of the way of two chaps coming down the hill as I was staggering up it. That said they were pleasant and greetings were exchanged.

 

The second was today. I was out maintaining some caches when I bumped into John one of the Countryside Rangers when mention was made of cycle tread patterns being seen. Time to keep my trap shut as I had seen logs on my caches up the path were a recent visitor mentioned having cycled there.

 

For the most part the route is on Bridlepath or in areas where cycling is accepted. However this area was not and the no cycling attribute had been used on the cache page. The path is rarely used and is very fragile.

 

There are plenty of places to cycle, all I ask is that we show some respect both to the people who use the path and to the landowners.

 

Public footpaths

 

Public footpaths can be used by walkers and this includes wheelchair users and those pushing prams or pushchairs. As with all public rights of way, you may also take a dog, although you may need to keep it on a lead or otherwise under close control on some paths.

 

There is no right to ride a pushbike along a public footpath, although individual landowners may permit cycling on some routes which are public footpaths e.g. certain sections of canal towpath in the care of British Waterways.

 

Thanks for taking the time to read this

 

Cheers

 

Tony

 

Hi Tony,

Good post, just to clarify your point with regards "no right to ride", it is actually illegal to ride a bike on a public footpath which hasn't been designated as a shared path by the landower. (I'm probably being pedantic but it's worth knowing!) This is taken from Sustrans:

 

Public footpaths

Public footpaths are for pedestrians and wheelchair

users only. It is illegal to cycle on a footpath unless

permission has been granted by the landowner to

use it as a shared use path (see below).

 

Bridleways

Public bridleways can be used by walkers,

horseriders, wheelchair users and cyclists.

However, by law, cyclists should give way to other

users. Bridleways may not have been specifically

designed for cycle use, so surfaces may be poor.

 

Shared use paths

Shared use paths are those designated for use by

pedestrians,cyclists, and in some cases horse riders.

These are usually free of motor traffic and are

specifically designed for the different users, so

surfaces should be good. Permissive shared use

paths include sections of canal towpaths, forest

tracks, disused railways, footpaths and routes

adjacent to footpaths. Many of the traffic-free

sections of the National Cycle Network use shared

use paths.

 

Cheers

Leon

Link to comment
Tony

 

How right you are... the number of times I have been almost run down by a cyclist on a public footpath!!

 

If there's no clycling attribute there, don't ride to it!

 

 

Not just cyclists either. On one particularly narrow stretch of footpath (no, it wasn't a bridleway) I came face to face with a rather attractive, young(ish) lady on a rather unattractive, large horse. I had to back right into the hedge to avoid being trampled. When I politly pointed out that horse riding was prohibited on public footpaths she replied

It's my f***ing land and I'll ride my f***ing horse where ever I f***ing well want. [uNQUOTE] and off she f***ing well went leaving me rather taken aback. :P
Link to comment

For the most part the route is on Bridlepath or in areas where cycling is accepted. However this area was not and the no cycling attribute had been used on the cache page. The path is rarely used and is very fragile.

Not everyone is good at looking at attributes and if they use GSAK the attributes don't get downloaded with a PQ so it may very well be a good idea to mention this fact on the cache page. I've done that on one of mine but as it's a forestry area I can't tell if people adhere to it or not :P

Link to comment

Just to clarify one other point, the law says that any cyclist who dismounts and continues to walk with their bike is considered to be a 'foot passenger' and not a cyclist, so pushing a bike along a public footpath is perfectly permissible (although obviously to be avoided if there's a reasonable alternative).

Link to comment
Just to clarify one other point, the law says that any cyclist who dismounts and continues to walk with their bike is considered to be a 'foot passenger' and not a cyclist, so pushing a bike along a public footpath is perfectly permissible (although obviously to be avoided if there's a reasonable alternative).

 

Also worth pointing out that most legislation relating to 'cycling on footpaths' actually relates to the riding of cycles on a 'footway set aside for the use of pedestrians' which runs alongside a road - and not a footpath (across the moor, fields, parks etc) - unless a local byelaw has been passed making cycling in such areas an offence....

Link to comment
Also worth pointing out that most legislation relating to 'cycling on footpaths' actually relates to the riding of cycles on a 'footway set aside for the use of pedestrians' which runs alongside a road - and not a footpath (across the moor, fields, parks etc) - unless a local byelaw has been passed making cycling in such areas an offence....

That's just too funny. I almost posted almost exactly that above what I eventually posted but figured I was just being pedantic :P

Link to comment

Not that I am making a counter argument but it is often a fallacy that the erosion is caused by cycling. It is often cited as a reason to ban the bikes from an area when the main culprits are foot traffic and horses etc.

 

Some cyclists insist on riding like lunatics and doing stunts which do cause damage but in the whole they just leave a tread mark that is visible but hardly contributes.

 

Think of some places like in the lakes where there is massive damage caused to the footpaths , yet a distinct lack of cyclists.

Link to comment

not related to cycling as such, but just wondered what people's opinion was of my choice to get to the train station. I have only one route to the station, down a 50mph dual carriageway, with no cycle lane, but with a small footpath (the tarmac'd variety, on the edge of the road!) Currently, I cycle on the footpath, for which i make no apologies, as cycling in the road is too large a risk for me! Oh, and its uphill, so i'm slow... What would others do?

 

No other routes - trust me, i'd use them if there was, and if i get off and pushed, i may as well walk the whole journey!

 

No right or wrong answers, just curious!

Link to comment

not related to cycling as such, but just wondered what people's opinion was of my choice to get to the train station. I have only one route to the station, down a 50mph dual carriageway, with no cycle lane, but with a small footpath (the tarmac'd variety, on the edge of the road!) Currently, I cycle on the footpath, for which i make no apologies, as cycling in the road is too large a risk for me! Oh, and its uphill, so i'm slow... What would others do?

 

No other routes - trust me, i'd use them if there was, and if i get off and pushed, i may as well walk the whole journey!

 

No right or wrong answers, just curious!

 

You could write to your local council asking them to make an application under Cycle Tracks Act 1984 for the path to be converted for shared use. There may be a local cycling forum that can add to the pressure for them to do this.

Link to comment

Just to clarify one other point, the law says that any cyclist who dismounts and continues to walk with their bike is considered to be a 'foot passenger' and not a cyclist, so pushing a bike along a public footpath is perfectly permissible (although obviously to be avoided if there's a reasonable alternative).

 

Yup, pushing the bike is fine.

Link to comment

not related to cycling as such, but just wondered what people's opinion was of my choice to get to the train station. I have only one route to the station, down a 50mph dual carriageway, with no cycle lane, but with a small footpath (the tarmac'd variety, on the edge of the road!) Currently, I cycle on the footpath, for which i make no apologies, as cycling in the road is too large a risk for me! Oh, and its uphill, so i'm slow... What would others do?

 

No other routes - trust me, i'd use them if there was, and if i get off and pushed, i may as well walk the whole journey!

 

No right or wrong answers, just curious!

 

You could write to your local council asking them to make an application under Cycle Tracks Act 1984 for the path to be converted for shared use. There may be a local cycling forum that can add to the pressure for them to do this.

 

I don't have a problem with what you're doing, as long as you realise that it's your responsibility to get out of the way of the pedestrians and you don't scream up on them like an exocet missile knocking grannies out of the way. Similarly there's a path I use which is a for shared use and on one section it splits to a cycle path & a footpath and is clearly signed but it peeves me when pedestrians choose to use the cycle bit & amble along en mass blocking the route - when this happens I usually creep right up behind them slowly and then ding the bell & then watch them nearly jump out of their skins :) d

 

As Mongoose said why not ask the council to consider designating it for shared use.

Link to comment

not related to cycling as such, but just wondered what people's opinion was of my choice to get to the train station. I have only one route to the station, down a 50mph dual carriageway, with no cycle lane, but with a small footpath (the tarmac'd variety, on the edge of the road!) Currently, I cycle on the footpath, for which i make no apologies, as cycling in the road is too large a risk for me! Oh, and its uphill, so i'm slow... What would others do?

 

No other routes - trust me, i'd use them if there was, and if i get off and pushed, i may as well walk the whole journey!

 

No right or wrong answers, just curious!

 

I often cycle along the pavement If I'm going along a busy road with empty pavement beside it.

Often passed by police in cars who have operated common sense .

Link to comment

Without Prejudice

 

Being the "guilty" party referred to at the head of this thread (point 2) I feel I must clarify some points and also take the punishment too. :)

 

I did ride on public footpaths on the day in question :)

I rode on them for maybe a mile in total (an estimate).

Much of that distance was getting to the nearest road from Withered Post GC10YH4 because at the time I was totally knackered and riding was the lazy thing to do :) . From Barrier GCZ5DR (and I mention this in my logs) I pushed the bike so there would still be tyre tracks and I also make reference (in the log) to the fact that bikes aren't allowed (to be ridden) but as I was originally intending to go over the hill I wasn't going to leave it behind. In fact it was a great help getting over the mud in places, acting a sort of zimmer frame for my poor legs.

As for the rest of the route ; I was on and off the bike for all sorts of obstacles such as styles and rocks and bridges and (something that occurred every 700 feet or so) CACHES :D

 

Feel free to hurl abuse in my direction for my misdemeanor over this and I'm sure I may be guilty in the future too but I will promise to check the attributes more thoroughly in future.

 

Respectful regards, Steve Wright

(also known as Carlos)

Walker & Cyclist

Link to comment

There does seem to be some confusion about the legality of riding push bikes on Public footpaths.

 

So I have been and had a look at cycling, walking and PROW information.

 

All say it is an offense. Though most don't say exactly under what act etc.

 

The Countryside Act of 1968 made it legal to cycle on pretty much any highway/byway except public footpaths though I ain't spending all day reading it but it seems the minimum is trespass if you ride on a public footpath.

 

National Trust although they are encouraging cycling point out that riding anywhere that is not designated as a road or a cycling route is against one of their bye laws and subject to a £20 fine.

 

National Parks again a bye law this time with a £500 fine.

 

However why are arguing about legality when at the end of the day its about what is acceptable to the landowner/land manager as a way to access an area where a cache is.

Link to comment

Without Prejudice

 

Being the "guilty" party referred to at the head of this thread (point 2) I feel I must clarify some points and also take the punishment too. :)

 

I did ride on public footpaths on the day in question :)

I rode on them for maybe a mile in total (an estimate).

Much of that distance was getting to the nearest road from Withered Post GC10YH4 because at the time I was totally knackered and riding was the lazy thing to do :) . From Barrier GCZ5DR (and I mention this in my logs) I pushed the bike so there would still be tyre tracks and I also make reference (in the log) to the fact that bikes aren't allowed (to be ridden) but as I was originally intending to go over the hill I wasn't going to leave it behind. In fact it was a great help getting over the mud in places, acting a sort of zimmer frame for my poor legs.

As for the rest of the route ; I was on and off the bike for all sorts of obstacles such as styles and rocks and bridges and (something that occurred every 700 feet or so) CACHES :D

 

Feel free to hurl abuse in my direction for my misdemeanor over this and I'm sure I may be guilty in the future too but I will promise to check the attributes more thoroughly in future.

 

Respectful regards, Steve Wright

(also known as Carlos)

Walker & Cyclist

 

I was trying to avoid bringing anyone personally into this. You did mention it in your logs you also made it clear that this was mostly pushing the bike which is fine. I certainly don't want to send any abuse in your direction just ask that in general people take care about the route taken.

Edited by mongoose39uk
Link to comment

... when this happens I usually creep right up behind them slowly and then ding the bell & then watch them nearly jump out of their skins :) d

 

:) At least you have a bell and use it.

 

I do a lot of walking along our local tarmac footpaths around our town and these are frequently used by cyclist, often youngsters. Personally, I don't mind this as long as they are considerate of pedestrians using the path - but I wish all cyclist would use a bell as a "polite warning" of their approach. I'll happily step to one side to allow a cyclist to ride past, but well-maintained bikes are virtually silent and a quick ding-a-ling would be appreciated. :)

 

MrsB

Link to comment
The Countryside Act of 1968 made it legal to cycle on pretty much any highway/byway except public footpaths though I ain't spending all day reading it but it seems the minimum is trespass if you ride on a public footpath.

Cycling on a footpath (as opposed to a footway (as defined by the Highways Act 1980) is not illegal - ie it is not a criminal offence to ride on a footpath - as long as no local byelaw makes it such. However, unless cycling is expressly permitted, the cyclist is trespassing (a civil wrong), and it will be possible for the landowner to sue for damages - where the landowner can show that he has suffered a loss as a direct result of the trespass.....

Incidentally, in such cases a cyclist is a person riding OR PUSHING a bike.

Link to comment

Point taken on board Tony (again)

 

The Countryside Act of 1968 made it legal to cycle on pretty much any highway/byway except public footpaths though I ain't spending all day reading it but it seems the minimum is trespass if you ride on a public footpath.

Cycling on a footpath (as opposed to a footway (as defined by the Highways Act 1980) is not illegal - ie it is not a criminal offence to ride on a footpath - as long as no local byelaw makes it such. However, unless cycling is expressly permitted, the cyclist is trespassing (a civil wrong), and it will be possible for the landowner to sue for damages - where the landowner can show that he has suffered a loss as a direct result of the trespass.....

Incidentally, in such cases a cyclist is a person riding OR PUSHING a bike.

 

Does anyone know of this being carried out? I may have to get a lighter bike and carry it :)

Link to comment

Shout and shake your sticks at me all you want............

 

But in response to cycling on pavements (not footpaths) i will always do this. I have been knocked off my bike 10-20 times but drivers who dont give enough room to the side of the curb. For this reason i have given up and now always cycle down the pavement with a horn so pedestrians know im coming.

Link to comment

OK, I don't think any kind of prosecution either criminal or civil is likely for people riding a bike/pushing a bike on a public footpath. Waste of everyones time and money I reckon.

Ah well, not much more to be said I guess.

Think I will shut up now.

 

You would be surprised. Several years ago my nephew was knocked off his bike on a 60mph road near his home.

 

Understandably, once he was out of hospital and recovered, we was nervous of using the road, so rode on the pavement instead. He was stopped by the police (actually the local bobby with nowt better to do) and asked to get off the pavement and ride in the road instead. Verbal arguments ensued and eventually it ended up in court. It was thrown out of course as it was a waste of everyone's time, however a 15 year old boy and his parents had been through an enormous amount of stress because a copper did not want to back down.

Link to comment

When I used to live in the Swindon area I used to try and cycle as much as possible to caches. Some are easy - the Ridgeway and the Kennet and Avon towpath for example. But in planning a day trip I often had a route mapped out that meant some caches were up footpaths

 

I was then left with a dilemma. Leave the bike? Lock it - and to what? Push it up the footpath? Ride on the footpath?

 

What I usually did was push it to the first style/gate and then lock it to that - out of view on the far side.

 

The most interesting thing was bridleways - in over 12 months I only bumped (not literally!) into a horse once. Some of them were a bit churned up but they were usually great rides.

Link to comment

OK, I don't think any kind of prosecution either criminal or civil is likely for people riding a bike/pushing a bike on a public footpath. Waste of everyones time and money I reckon.

Ah well, not much more to be said I guess.

Think I will shut up now.

 

You would be surprised. Several years ago my nephew was knocked off his bike on a 60mph road near his home.

 

Understandably, once he was out of hospital and recovered, we was nervous of using the road, so rode on the pavement instead. He was stopped by the police (actually the local bobby with nowt better to do) and asked to get off the pavement and ride in the road instead. Verbal arguments ensued and eventually it ended up in court. It was thrown out of course as it was a waste of everyone's time, however a 15 year old boy and his parents had been through an enormous amount of stress because a copper did not want to back down.

I can't comment on that specific case but when I was in the job we had a group of kids causing all sorts of hassle by being ignorant on bikes and I did threaten them with prosecution.

Once a file has been completed and sent off it doesn't matter what the said policeman wants, it's in the hands of the C.P.S. and trust me common sense rarely applies to any decision they make.

Link to comment

... when this happens I usually creep right up behind them slowly and then ding the bell & then watch them nearly jump out of their skins :) d

 

:) At least you have a bell and use it.

 

I do a lot of walking along our local tarmac footpaths around our town and these are frequently used by cyclist, often youngsters. Personally, I don't mind this as long as they are considerate of pedestrians using the path - but I wish all cyclist would use a bell as a "polite warning" of their approach. I'll happily step to one side to allow a cyclist to ride past, but well-maintained bikes are virtually silent and a quick ding-a-ling would be appreciated. :)

 

MrsB

 

If I'm wrong, I'm sure others will correct me :D but I think one of the big reasons that bikes don't have bells is that the legal requirement to have ding-a-ling bells was removed. It has only recently been re-introduced. I bought a new bike last year and it has a cheap pathetic ding-a-ling bell, but when used in good time, most pedestrians seem appreciative and seem to find it mildly humorous! Though I think that's more to with me and my stature and the sound of the ding-a-ling rather than just the bell itself! :D

Link to comment

I'm also often annoyed about cyclists on public footpaths. Not so much because of the danger of getting run down by them, as there doesn't tend to be very many around. But as quite a major user of footpaths throughout Britain I've seen the extensive erosion caused by tyre tracks.

 

On the typical soft grass/mud path in most areas you can see the tyre tracks gather water and form channels running down the hillside. Footprints don't do this, even thousands of them, so the surface gets time to recover if there have been no tyre tracks. After a few cyclists have passed by it becomes difficult to walk without slipping in the muddy tracks, and where it's steep the surface soil soon disappears altogether.

 

The worst offenders are motorbikes, which have a huge impact on footpaths and even on the tracks that they are allowed to share with walkers.

 

Here's a few random examples from my walks along the Pennine Way.

 

Cross Fell

Cross Fell

Cam Fell

Near Hadrian's Wall

Deer Play

Rowhope Burn, in the Cheviots

Tracks left by the Rowhope Burn riders

After the same riders

A section that bikes can't use!

Link to comment

 

If I'm wrong, I'm sure others will correct me :) but I think one of the big reasons that bikes don't have bells is that the legal requirement to have ding-a-ling bells was removed. It has only recently been re-introduced. I bought a new bike last year and it has a cheap pathetic ding-a-ling bell, but when used in good time, most pedestrians seem appreciative and seem to find it mildly humorous! Though I think that's more to with me and my stature and the sound of the ding-a-ling rather than just the bell itself! :)

 

I think all new bikes must be sold with a bell nowadays, but I don't know when that came in.

Link to comment

As an all year round cycle commuter who tries to do a good proportion of my caching by bike this is quite a hot topic for me. Personally I loathe cycling on paths and pavement ninjas make my blood boil :) . Traffic is reasonably predicatable and a confident cyclist can influence the behaviour of motorists considerably by road positioning etc. Much the same for motorcyclists. In 12 years of cycle commuting I've never been hit (but I've fallen off twice :) ).

 

Footpaths and cycle paths (especially shared use paths) are a recipe for conflict (at least) or worse, disaster. Pedestrians are far less predicatable, are not required to indicate and don't have brake lights. Pedestrians with dogs, especially ones on extendable leads, are particularly hazardous for cyclists. Don't get me wrong here - I'm not having a go at pedestrians (I am one a lot of the time) or dog walking muggles (or cachers for that matter). They've got as much right to be on a path, sometimes more right, as your average cyclist. Put me on a bike on an arterial road in Birmingham during rush hour and I'm basically happy, maybe a bit frustrated from time to time, but basically happy. Put me on a bike on a busy shared use canal towpath or footpath/way (whatever you want to call it) and frankly - it's rarely enjoyable.

 

When I absolutely have to cycle on a path (normally because there's a cache on it :D ) my motto is expect the unexpected. That means dead slow when there's people (or dogs) about and give them as wide berth as possible.

 

So here's one cyclist you're very unlikely to meet on a path, especially a Sustrans-type shared use path. In other words, support for the OP from a perhaps surprising quarter!

 

One thing I'm not sure I agree with though is the erosion argument. I can't pretend to be well informed on this but my strong hunch is that bikes on paths will rarely have any lasting impact. If damage to paths / tracks is your thing, take issue with the Green Laners :) .

Link to comment

... when this happens I usually creep right up behind them slowly and then ding the bell & then watch them nearly jump out of their skins :) d

 

:) At least you have a bell and use it.

 

I do a lot of walking along our local tarmac footpaths around our town and these are frequently used by cyclist, often youngsters. Personally, I don't mind this as long as they are considerate of pedestrians using the path - but I wish all cyclist would use a bell as a "polite warning" of their approach. I'll happily step to one side to allow a cyclist to ride past, but well-maintained bikes are virtually silent and a quick ding-a-ling would be appreciated. :)

 

MrsB

 

If I'm wrong, I'm sure others will correct me :D but I think one of the big reasons that bikes don't have bells is that the legal requirement to have ding-a-ling bells was removed. It has only recently been re-introduced. I bought a new bike last year and it has a cheap pathetic ding-a-ling bell, but when used in good time, most pedestrians seem appreciative and seem to find it mildly humorous! Though I think that's more to with me and my stature and the sound of the ding-a-ling rather than just the bell itself! :D

 

The bike I used for caching today does have a bell but my old faithful road bike that got stripped for weight because I used to use it for Triathlon doesn't. When riding this one as I approach walkers I shout "Ring Ring" which gains their attention and gives them a smile hopefully as I apologise for not having a bell in passing :D

Link to comment

not related to cycling as such, but just wondered what people's opinion was of my choice to get to the train station. I have only one route to the station, down a 50mph dual carriageway, with no cycle lane, but with a small footpath (the tarmac'd variety, on the edge of the road!) Currently, I cycle on the footpath, for which i make no apologies, as cycling in the road is too large a risk for me! Oh, and its uphill, so i'm slow... What would others do?

 

No other routes - trust me, i'd use them if there was, and if i get off and pushed, i may as well walk the whole journey!

 

No right or wrong answers, just curious!

 

You have my complete sympathy. The footpath coverage near me is amazing ,only a very few pedestrians use them. The steep hill around Reigate [surrey] makes it dangerous to cycle on the roads and it is accepted by the council that the 'footpaths' can be used by cyclists. In my view the laws regarding no cycling need ammending as they do not reflect the reduction in foot traffic and the increase in cycling. !!

Link to comment
As an all year round cycle commuter [sNIP]... [/sNIP] take issue with the Green Laners.

 

That makes a lot of sense and as a motorist / sometime biker / sometime cyclist / sometime walker / and on rare occasions, horse rider, I agree with you entirely. An ounce or two (sorry, 28.35gm or 56.70) of common sense goes a very long way.

Edited by Pharisee
Link to comment

 

If I'm wrong, I'm sure others will correct me :) but I think one of the big reasons that bikes don't have bells is that the legal requirement to have ding-a-ling bells was removed. It has only recently been re-introduced. I bought a new bike last year and it has a cheap pathetic ding-a-ling bell, but when used in good time, most pedestrians seem appreciative and seem to find it mildly humorous! Though I think that's more to with me and my stature and the sound of the ding-a-ling rather than just the bell itself! :)

 

I've just restarted biking after a few decades of not. I just bought a new bike (folding) and it came without a bell. That was one of the first things I added.

 

I love my ding-a-ling. Whenever I'm approaching pedestrians from behind, I use my ding-a-ling so they know I'm coming. Otherwise, they might hear me at the last moment, and jump the wrong way. I also use my ding-a-ling as I'm coming at them from the front, as a sort of "Hello". I''ve also used my ding-a-ling at squirrels and rabbits, but they don't seem to know what to do about it. And occasionally, riding along a disused railway, or a towpath, I'll just ding-a-ling for the sheer exuberance of it.I think everyone should have a ding-a-ling, and use it.

 

For me, the bike is a great answer to my Plantar Fasciitis, which is limiting my walking to about 5 or 8 miles per day. Distance on the bike doesn't count against that, because it doesn't stress the affected foot-part, so yesterday, for example, I did a multi that involved about 2 or 3 miles of distance, about 90% on the bike.

 

A big thank you to geocaching for reminding me of the joys of cycling!

Link to comment

One thing I'm not sure I agree with though is the erosion argument. I can't pretend to be well informed on this but my strong hunch is that bikes on paths will rarely have any lasting impact. If damage to paths / tracks is your thing, take issue with the Green Laners :ph34r: .

Take it from me, bikes DO cause lasting damage to footpaths. Not when the ground is bone-dry and hard, admittedly - but then how often is it like that? Surely you must have noticed the channel left in the ground after one cyclist has passed along a muddy footpath - not quite as bad as the photos I posted above but not far off. And when a path is regularly used by bikes, you must notice how you have to use the edge of the path all the time instead of the middle?

 

This photo was taken earlier in the month by the side of the Thames near Radley (Oxford). Before the wet weather started. The path is still OK, but the only reason that it's bare (and slippery) mud in the middle is that it's frequently used by cyclists (see the tyre tracks). I'm not saying that this example is a particularly bad one (there's a lot worse on the Peak District, for instance where mountain bikes often cut the path to ribbons of mud), it's just an example of normal conditions where a footpath is shared by walkers and cyclists.

Link to comment

I'm not going to dipute the legalities of riding a pushbike on public footpaths, as that seems pretty conclusive. However I would argue that riding a bike along a footpath and leaving some tire marks is doing far less damage to the environment that driving a car short distances to each cache. :ph34r:

Where there's just the occasional tyre trail, I don't think that it's a problem. It's where hundreds of cyclists use a soft footpath over the winter: you have to accept that it makes it much more difficult for the legal path users. Path erosion is very significant and this is a common sight.

Link to comment

As an all year round cycle commuter who tries to do a good proportion of my caching by bike this is quite a hot topic for me. Personally I loathe cycling on paths and pavement ninjas make my blood boil :anicute: . Traffic is reasonably predicatable and a confident cyclist can influence the behaviour of motorists considerably by road positioning etc. Much the same for motorcyclists. In 12 years of cycle commuting I've never been hit (but I've fallen off twice :ph34r: ).

 

Footpaths and cycle paths (especially shared use paths) are a recipe for conflict (at least) or worse, disaster. Pedestrians are far less predicatable, are not required to indicate and don't have brake lights. Pedestrians with dogs, especially ones on extendable leads, are particularly hazardous for cyclists. Don't get me wrong here - I'm not having a go at pedestrians (I am one a lot of the time) or dog walking muggles (or cachers for that matter). They've got as much right to be on a path, sometimes more right, as your average cyclist. Put me on a bike on an arterial road in Birmingham during rush hour and I'm basically happy, maybe a bit frustrated from time to time, but basically happy. Put me on a bike on a busy shared use canal towpath or footpath/way (whatever you want to call it) and frankly - it's rarely enjoyable.

 

When I absolutely have to cycle on a path (normally because there's a cache on it :laughing: ) my motto is expect the unexpected. That means dead slow when there's people (or dogs) about and give them as wide berth as possible.

 

So here's one cyclist you're very unlikely to meet on a path, especially a Sustrans-type shared use path. In other words, support for the OP from a perhaps surprising quarter!

 

One thing I'm not sure I agree with though is the erosion argument. I can't pretend to be well informed on this but my strong hunch is that bikes on paths will rarely have any lasting impact. If damage to paths / tracks is your thing, take issue with the Green Laners :anicute: .

 

As a non driver I use my bike for getting to work, shopping and caching. We have an excellent cycle trail which in places is shared by pedestrians and in other places is split and the two run alongside each other. What ticks me off is when the pedestrians walk three abreast with puschairs on the cycle track, or have their dogs on extended leads and let them stretch across the path.

 

Worse than that are the people who don't have their dogs on a lead at all. Six weeks ago I hit a dog which came out of the bushes whilst I was watching a loose dog on the other side of the path. I had to have four weeks off work with a fractured elbow and damage to both arms and hands. I still haven't got full use of my hands and lost over £400 in wages because I am only on part sick pay. I have since been informed it is illegal to walk dogs without a lead (no idea whether this is true). (By the way, the DOG is fine!! :ph34r: )

 

Its easier to ride on the pavement here because all the pedestrians are on the cycle track! I ride on the road whenever it's safe to do so but the traffic doesn't stop and look for bikes, if I ride on the path I go slowly. I haven't got a bell, but if I stop pedalling the ticking sound of the chain warns people of my approach.

 

I want one of those horns that go "PARP!!" but there is no rooom on the handlebars to add anything. :P

Link to comment

I think this site from the Dartmoor National Park might help this discussion.

 

It clearly explains how erosion gullies are formed (not from cycling, though cycling is listed as an aggravating factor, along with several others).

 

They explain how more damage is caused and path widening etc. is caused.

 

They then go on to explain how they are tackling the issue and intending to stop the erosion. ( no mention of banning bikes).

 

They then give a handy set of guidelines for users of the moor ( again no mention of banning bikes.)

 

I think what we have is a misunderstanding of how erosion is caused, due to the visual aspects of erosion appearing to be gullies created by bikes. They certainly assist in the erosion of our countryside but are not the main cause so some realism needs to be applied.

 

Please do read the guidelines as they give handy techniques to reduce the amount of damage you are causing while walking along the footpaths.

 

:grin:

Link to comment

I think this site from the Dartmoor National Park might help this discussion.

 

It clearly explains how erosion gullies are formed (not from cycling, though cycling is listed as an aggravating factor, along with several others).

 

They explain how more damage is caused and path widening etc. is caused.

 

They then go on to explain how they are tackling the issue and intending to stop the erosion. ( no mention of banning bikes).

 

They then give a handy set of guidelines for users of the moor ( again no mention of banning bikes.)

 

I think what we have is a misunderstanding of how erosion is caused, due to the visual aspects of erosion appearing to be gullies created by bikes. They certainly assist in the erosion of our countryside but are not the main cause so some realism needs to be applied.

 

Please do read the guidelines as they give handy techniques to reduce the amount of damage you are causing while walking along the footpaths.

 

:lol:

 

Read em :grin:

 

The Ranger Service have the duty to maintain the Dartmoor Commons Byelaw (3) that restricts the use of motor vehicles and mountain bikes, both of which can cause damage leading to erosion.

 

(1) No person shall without reasonable excuse ride or drive a cycle, motor cycle, motor vehicle or any other mechanically propelled vehicle on any part of the access land where there is no right of way for that class of vehicle.

 

I am not saying they are the main cause just a contributory factor.

Edited by mongoose39uk
Link to comment

It clearly explains how erosion gullies are formed (not from cycling, though cycling is listed as an aggravating factor, along with several others).

Useful example there: but how would they explain the photos I posted above - mostly motorised bikes I'll admit, but the same principle. I've walked over 700 miles of public footpaths in Britain in the last three years and the only significant "aggravating factor" I've seen is bikes. Except in a few extremely popular spots, walkers tend to keep a trail marked and clear but don't cut it to ribbons of mud. Horses ruin a footpath completely, but mostly tend to stick to bridlepaths where the walker has to accept that he has to put up with the rough going as the horse has precedence.

Link to comment

As you said the photos show examples of motorbikes going over the moors.

 

Dartmoor restricts the use of bikes and yet still has large gullies. It is down to how the soil structure is destroyed by the action of feet. This then removes the soil and creates gullies. (all covered on the site I listed.)

 

The difference in pictures for the one showing where bikes can't go can be explained due to the difference in the soil and localised climate. The presence of trees and walls reduces the flow of the run off water thus reducing the effects of erosion. If the soil structure is different than that of the higher moor then it is more resistant to the compaction caused by feet.

 

I don't doubt that you have walked many miles and seen horrendous erosion but the examples you have shown are by idiots riding motorbikes.

 

Once a path becomes muddy any passage by bike is going to show and will cause further damage so intelligence needs to be applied, ie. don't ride your bike through badly eroded spots. Likewise you shouldn't walk through them either. Or around them or you will widen the damage.

 

Everyone using any path needs to be aware of other users and have respect for them. We should all take steps to minimise our impact on the landscape.

 

Bikes do tend to be demonised due to some idiots in general riders are sensible.

Link to comment

Can anyone explain to me why so many cyclists ride on busy roads when the adjacent pavement has a cycle path on it? I know which I'd rather use. :grin:

 

From my cycling days I'd normally did not use the cyclepath beside a main road because typically the surface was poorly maintained and had bits of debris, glass etc on it. On a long stretch of road a good or bad road surface can be as important as a head or tail wind to a cyclist. You can really crack on with a nice smooth surface (or wide white lines).

 

And while I'm at it, yes, I did jump red lights too. Sometimes it's necessary for self preservation to get the jump on the rest of the traffic. The Elephant and Castle roundabout being an example. And I rode on pavements too, on occasion, so neh! Of course I pomposly fulminate now when I see cyclists doing it - big hypocrite that I am. :lol:

Link to comment

I don't doubt that you have walked many miles and seen horrendous erosion but the examples you have shown are by idiots riding motorbikes.

Not the one by the Thames at Radley: I included that one as it shows a more common situation where the path becomes stripped of vegetation due to the constant cutting by bike tyres. You can see the tyre marks, although this path is in an advanced state of damage and has had the top layer of mud almost completely removed, making the tyre trails less obvious. The harder layer underneath is a slippery clay which I found almost impossible to walk along: I had to use the grass at the side. I'll be back to the Thames Path next month so I'll try and get some more blatant examples.

 

We could no doubt debate this point for ever, but I don't think that anyone is going to convince me that my eyes have been deceiving me all this time!

Link to comment

 

Not just cyclists either. On one particularly narrow stretch of footpath (no, it wasn't a bridleway) I came face to face with a rather attractive, young(ish) lady on a rather unattractive, large horse. I had to back right into the hedge to avoid being trampled. When I politly pointed out that horse riding was prohibited on public footpaths she replied

It's my f***ing land and I'll ride my f***ing horse where ever I f***ing well want. [uNQUOTE] and off she f***ing well went leaving me rather taken aback. :grin:

 

I would think that logically, if she does indeed own the land (and therefore, the footpath), then she is entitled to ride her horse along it. Of course, having a civil tongue to point this out to people would be a benefit.

Link to comment

<snip>mostly motorised bikes I'll admit, but the same principle. I've walked over 700 miles of public footpaths in Britain in the last three years and the only significant "aggravating factor" I've seen is bikes. <snip>

You've made your own counter-argument. It's mostly the motorbikes that do it and, while you may see cyclists on your travels, they certainly don't cause the damage that motorbikes do. It's not the same principle at all. Pedal cycles don't have the engine needed to churn up the paths like that. That's like comparing the passage of a deer on a path with a herd of wildebeests. I'd say that all the photos you cite are motorbike-related: no-one on a push bike is going to be able to even move on some of that mud.

Link to comment

 

Not just cyclists either. On one particularly narrow stretch of footpath (no, it wasn't a bridleway) I came face to face with a rather attractive, young(ish) lady on a rather unattractive, large horse. I had to back right into the hedge to avoid being trampled. When I politly pointed out that horse riding was prohibited on public footpaths she replied [.QUOTE]It's my f***ing land and I'll ride my f***ing horse where ever I f***ing well want. [.UNQUOTE] and off she f***ing well went leaving me rather taken aback. :grin:

 

I would think that logically, if she does indeed own the land (and therefore, the footpath), then she is entitled to ride her horse along it. Of course, having a civil tongue to point this out to people would be a benefit.

Yes, if she owns the land she is indeed entitled to ride on it, and I believe anyone can legally ride on a footpath with the landowner's permission, but as you say a civil tongue is a fine thing...!

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...