Cycling on Public Footpaths

[+Carlos & The Birdie Crew]

I'm still following this thread after hijacking it early on in its life.

It's funny how I am now looking (whilst walking) for tyre tracks, their type and the damage they appear to be doing. On the last few walks I've done there were cycle tracks but the damage done is soley dependant on how muddy the ground is. My feet for instance in that level of mud did more damage to the pathway than one cycle had done in my opinion.

Interestingly, as I was studying the mud (sad case that I am) a quad came flying down the path and was creating an unholy mire of the path and creating a new parallel path not 3 feet away. So we have the circumstance that other vehicles can do more permanent damage yet the cyclist (pushed or ridden) is berated for what amounts to lesser "wear" than the walker.

Carlos

[+jerryo]

<snip>the cyclist (pushed or ridden) is berated for what amounts to lesser "wear" than the walker.

Carlos

Possibly because cyclists who sometimes ride on footpaths are slow targets and, being engine-less, can actually hear the fervent invective and diatribes against them. Also, when abused by cantankerous pedestrians, they are maybe less likely than their motorised counterparts to dismount and stick one on their fulminating abuser. Just a thought.

[+currykev]

 

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 .

 

Common sense?

Get on the road where you belong!

[+Happy Humphrey]

My feet for instance in that level of mud did more damage to the pathway than one cycle had done in my opinion.

The problem is that the tyres create a channel: when it rains, the rainwater follows the channel, expanding the tyre track and washing away the base. The Deer Play Moor photo below shows this process under way with the trail of just two bikes (albeit with wider tracks: if it's wet next month I'll get some more photos of damage caused by bicycles).

With footprints, there's no channel. As well as this, bike tyres are less wide than boots and focus the weight on a narrow line which means that the track is deeper than a footprint (unless you're a REALLY heavy walker!).

 

I would point out that I've nothing against cyclists at all (on the contrary) - just not on footpaths, please. Even though no-one seems convinced, I get tired of having to avoid the grooves along paths.

 

[+dino-irl]

The problem is that the tyres create a channel: when it rains, the rainwater follows the channel, expanding the tyre track and washing away the base. The Deer Play Moor photo below shows this process under way with the trail of just two bikes (albeit with wider tracks: if it's wet next month I'll get some more photos of damage caused by bicycles).

With footprints, there's no channel. As well as this, bike tyres are less wide than boots and focus the weight on a narrow line which means that the track is deeper than a footprint (unless you're a REALLY heavy walker!).

I disagree. I've seen many paths where a severe amount of damage and erosion is in existence with only the action of feet. Croagh Patrick, Errigal, Slieve League (all in Ireland) and I've also seen it in the Lakes so walking erosion can be serious too. It's particularly noticeable in wet, peaty areas so very common here in Ireland on popular routes.

[+t.a.folk]

I reply to CurryKev .

 

My mum was once cycling along a busy single carriaway road instead of cycling along an empty tarmac path other side of the grass verge .Mum got knocked from behind by a camper van and ended up going headfirst through the windscreen .She only survived because she was given the kiss of life etc by a passing off duty policeman (.He must have had a strong stomach to do that with her facial wounds).

 

Off topic .

Lucky or what !

She lived along that same stretch of road during W.W. 2 and a bomb that fell into their garden failed to explode .

Edited November 27, 2007 by t.a.folk

[+jerryo]

 

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 .

 

Common sense?

Get on the road where you belong!

 

The emphasis was on empty pavements and busy roads. Some of us live in areas outside London where there are cars doing more than 15MPH and no pedestrians on the paths.

[+fat boy slow]

Being a fairly keen cyclist, of both the road and mountain variety I have to say that I have never ever met a keen cyclist who deliberately goes out and rides on footpaths

 

Many are like me, occasionally they may " get a little lost " and not realise they are on a footpath and some make a habit of riding "cheeky trails "

 

However whenever I do get lost or find myself on a cheeky trail I like to think that I am courteous to all users of the route I meet regardless of where and when that is.

 

There are many many factors which cause erosion and I personally do not like to single out any 1 as a main cause as this ( imho ) oversimplifies things.

 

Like wise, the actual legalities are far more complex than it appears at first sight when it comes to ROWs in England & Wales, in this field I feel both countries could take a leaf out of Scotlands book.

For example getting off and pushing your bike does not make you a pedestrian, and you still have no legal right of passage along public footpath, however unless such footpaths are covered by specific by-laws making it a criminal offence to cycle on them you are not actually committing a criminal offence by doing so, as has been said earlier it is a " civil matter" between the land owner and person involved.

 

Sorry I wasn't going to post in this thread at all but I got lost and ended up ere anyway, can some one point me in the direction of the nearest way off it

[+JeremyR]

I would point out that I've nothing against cyclists at all (on the contrary) - just not on footpaths, please. Even though no-one seems convinced, I get tired of having to avoid the grooves along paths.

 

 

I would emphasise the point that others have made. The tracks in that photo are clearly trailbike tracks, which, given the addition of an engine capable of many times the power output of a pair of human legs on pedals, are an entirely different kettle of fish. I'm sure you'll get unanimous agreement here that public footpaths are not the place for motorbikes but I thought we were talking about pushbikes.

[+MartyBartfast]

My feet for instance in that level of mud did more damage to the pathway than one cycle had done in my opinion.

The problem is that the tyres create a channel: when it rains, the rainwater follows the channel, expanding the tyre track and washing away the base. The Deer Play Moor photo below shows this process under way with the trail of just two bikes (albeit with wider tracks: if it's wet next month I'll get some more photos of damage caused by bicycles).

With footprints, there's no channel. As well as this, bike tyres are less wide than boots and focus the weight on a narrow line which means that the track is deeper than a footprint (unless you're a REALLY heavy walker!).

 

I would point out that I've nothing against cyclists at all (on the contrary) - just not on footpaths, please. Even though no-one seems convinced, I get tired of having to avoid the grooves along paths.

 

 

Well those don't look like bicycle tracks to me, not even motorcycle tracks. While it's difficult to be sure without something to give perspective the tracks are far too wide. Looking at the channel dead centre and full of water it seems to run exactly parallel to the track on the far left which just misses that tussock - I'd say these were made by a quadbike.

[+Simply Paul]

A landowner can ride a quad on their own land of course...

 

And on the subject of pushing a bike not making you a pedestrian, I wonder if carrying one would be ok...

[nobby.nobbs]

Me again.

 

Thought I'd look at the Peak district national park site, they attribute large amounts of erosion to the passage of feet over the sensitive peat.

 

Then I had a look at another site that describes gulley erosion as :

 

Gully erosion Unlike rill erosion, gullies are too deep to be removed during normal cultivation with ordinary farm implements. They are formed from small depressions, which concentrate water and enlarge until several join to form a channel. The deepening channel undermines the head wall, which retreats upslope. The gully then widens as the side-walls are worn back

 

So it's formed when a series of shallow depressions link together. Now what makes a series of shallow depressions? Could feet walking up a soft slope do that?

 

What happens is that the path becomes damaged and very muddy and then a bike rides through it, this will cause further erosion as it will give a channel, but importantly the damage has already been done by the action of feet. The trouble is the tyre tracks last long enough for people to see.

 

So really we all need to amend our ways, whether walking or cycling, and if we come accross a cache that has a badly eroded path leading to it then suggest that it should be temp. archived to give the path a chance to recover.

[+jerryo]

Being a fairly keen cyclist, of both the road and mountain variety I have to say that I have never ever met a keen cyclist who deliberately goes out and rides on footpaths

 

Many are like me, occasionally they may " get a little lost " and not realise they are on a footpath and some make a habit of riding "cheeky trails "

 

I just Googled "cheeky trails" and got this.

Fantastic!

 

Sorry I wasn't going to post in this thread at all but I got lost and ended up ere anyway, can some one point me in the direction of the nearest way off it

Just haul your bike over that stile and ride walk towards the kissing gate over that meadow. Mwahahaha. Ahem.

[+Carlos & The Birdie Crew]

Hear Hear Nobby Nobbs!

 

"So really we all need to amend our ways, whether walking or cycling, and if we come accross a cache that has a badly eroded path leading to it then suggest that it should be temp. archived to give the path a chance to recover. cool.gif"

 

Unless I'm on fer a milestone

 

Carlos

[+Pharisee]

Not easy to walk along....

 

[+keehotee]

As well as this, bike tyres are less wide than boots and focus the weight on a narrow line which means that the track is deeper than a footprint (unless you're a REALLY heavy walker!).

 

Actually the US National Parks Service has done an enormous amount of research into this.

You're right in saying that a mountain bike tyre is narrower than a boot - however a bike exerts a constant load down over the full, soft, footprint of both tyres, whereas a walker (unless they're extremely flat-footed) puts their full weight on the toe of a single, hard, boot with every step they take!

[+FollowMeChaps]

I've always believed that rules are made for the interpretation of the wise not the blind following of fools. Provided cyclists heed the needs of other path users, where's the problem?

 

Surely there's more important things in life to grumble about? [Opps, sorry, I'm forgetting we Brit's love to moan]

[+Team Sieni]

I'm getting an all terrain pogo stick for Christmas.

[+Happy Humphrey]

I would emphasise the point that others have made. The tracks in that photo are clearly trailbike tracks, which, given the addition of an engine capable of many times the power output of a pair of human legs on pedals, are an entirely different kettle of fish. I'm sure you'll get unanimous agreement here that public footpaths are not the place for motorbikes but I thought we were talking about pushbikes.

The photo was definitely of trail bike tracks (even though they look like some sort of 4WD vehicle): but the point was to show how tyre tracks collect water, which erodes the channel formed. The tyres were a lot narrower than they appear: the tyre tracks have wdiened due to the water gathering and flowing in the channels.

 

I disagree. I've seen many paths where a severe amount of damage and erosion is in existence with only the action of feet. Croagh Patrick, Errigal, Slieve League (all in Ireland) and I've also seen it in the Lakes so walking erosion can be serious too. It's particularly noticeable in wet, peaty areas so very common here in Ireland on popular routes.

I don't doubt that there are popular spots where there's loads of wear from boots. I've seen it plenty of times too. Obviously, if thousands of people use a path all the time they are also going to wear out the path. But bikes simply cause an inordinate amount of damage on soft ground. I'll get back next month with photos.

 

I reiterate that I'm not against cycling in any way. In fact, I have a cycling-based "virtual cache" in France. Just keep off footpaths please!

[The Red Kite]

I'm getting an all terrain pogo stick for Christmas.

Got a link for that??

[+jerryo]

I'm getting an all terrain pogo stick for Christmas.

Got a link for that??

Here!

[+Deepdiggingmole]

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.

 

£30 fine for riding on a pavement - which can be given in the forma of a fixed penalty notice - interesting comment about it beiong a local bobby 'with nowt better to do' -though i feel what you will find is the local bobby has been to many meeting where there have been many complaints from people about those dadgum cyclists who ride on the pavement and often causing injury to the elderly as they shoot past at great speed. so the poor local bobby is in a quandry - does he deal with the matter robustly because it has been a matter of complaint and because it is indeed an offence which he is empowered to deal with - or does he ignore the complaints because of the stick he will get from the local civic society who insist it is safer to ride on the pavement. Most local bobbies will deal with this very emotive issue sensibly - if the cyclists are young then of course it is safer - however if the cyclist is an adult who shouldnt have a problem with riding on the road then that is where they should be - if they do not feel safe to ride on the road then they should not ride at all, and certainly not consider themselves above the law - oohhh !1 this will cause uproar i am sure

Most of the problems surrounding cyclists anywhere, road, footpaths anywhere however are these - (1) unroadworthy bikes - a lot of youngsters and many adults ride bikes that are not roadworthy in that they do not have brakes, reflectors, tyre tread and are likely to be 'off road' bikes (2) No lights - I find it absolutely amazing that ANYONE will go out on a bicyle at night with no lights. That is just a serious accident waiting to happen

There are many sensible cyclists around but far too many irresponsible ones that give cyclists a bad name - i ride on the roads and will never ride on the pavement or footpath - i will also not ride on the cycle track around where I live becasue they are more dangerous than the roads (anyone who knows Tonbridge will know what I mean) - there are some areas where the cycle tracks are very good however

[+mumbo jumbo]

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.

 

£30 fine for riding on a pavement - which can be given in the forma of a fixed penalty notice - interesting comment about it beiong a local bobby 'with nowt better to do' -though i feel what you will find is the local bobby has been to many meeting where there have been many complaints from people about those dadgum cyclists who ride on the pavement and often causing injury to the elderly as they shoot past at great speed. so the poor local bobby is in a quandry - does he deal with the matter robustly because it has been a matter of complaint and because it is indeed an offence which he is empowered to deal with - or does he ignore the complaints because of the stick he will get from the local civic society who insist it is safer to ride on the pavement. Most local bobbies will deal with this very emotive issue sensibly - if the cyclists are young then of course it is safer - however if the cyclist is an adult who shouldnt have a problem with riding on the road then that is where they should be - if they do not feel safe to ride on the road then they should not ride at all, and certainly not consider themselves above the law - oohhh !1 this will cause uproar i am sure

Most of the problems surrounding cyclists anywhere, road, footpaths anywhere however are these - (1) unroadworthy bikes - a lot of youngsters and many adults ride bikes that are not roadworthy in that they do not have brakes, reflectors, tyre tread and are likely to be 'off road' bikes (2) No lights - I find it absolutely amazing that ANYONE will go out on a bicyle at night with no lights. That is just a serious accident waiting to happen

There are many sensible cyclists around but far too many irresponsible ones that give cyclists a bad name - i ride on the roads and will never ride on the pavement or footpath - i will also not ride on the cycle track around where I live becasue they are more dangerous than the roads (anyone who knows Tonbridge will know what I mean) - there are some areas where the cycle tracks are very good however

 

Very much an echo of my earlier post (no 33) on this thread. Getting to this perspective on cycling issues only dawned on me after several years of cycling and I'm now something of an evangelist on such matters. I'm glad to see others share these views

 

MJ

[whitingiom]

"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"

 

Hang on a sec - they are roads that walkers use surely?

 

BOAT's in UK, Green Lanes in IoM?

 

From IoM Govt website.....

 

"There are many miles of ancient "unmade roads" in the Isle of Man. They are rights of way through the countryside, not just for pedestrians but also for other classes of traffic, such as 4 x 4's, motor cycles, mountain bikes and horses. These unmade roads are known as "greenlanes" but some of them are classified as "Greenway Roads" on which vehicles are restricted."

 

Cheers

Edited January 23, 2008 by whitingiom

[+Happy Humphrey]

Hang on a sec - they are roads that walkers use surely?

You're quite right - but have you seen the lane near the Round Table known as "the Pipeline" recently? It's been closed since March 2006 as it's impassable both on foot and by bike due to extreme tyre erosion!

 

Bear in mind that I'm not criticising anyone for riding a bike where it's legal, even where there's obvious damage being caused. There's damage by horses along many bridleways too, often making passage on foot very difficult, but I'm not suggesting that they are banned either! I'm just giving some evidence to counter the claim that tyre damage is not significant compared to erosion by walking.

 

Actually, I kept an eye open for cycling-related erosion along the Thames Path recently. This is the time of year when most of the wear takes place as the ground is so soft. There is plenty of erosion due to foot traffic, but that's as nothing compared to the cutting of channels by tyres - even though there's hardly ever a cyclist in sight and walkers are passing by all the time. Photos to follow.

[+Von-Horst]

"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"

 

Hang on a sec - they are roads that walkers use surely?

 

BOAT's in UK, Green Lanes in IoM?

 

Cheers

 

Byways open to all traffic

 

A byway open to all traffic, or BOAT, is a highway over which the public have a right to travel for vehicular and all other kinds of traffic but which is used by the public mainly for the purpose for which footpaths and bridleways are used. (United Kingdom Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, section 15(9)©, as amended by Road Traffic (Temporary Restrictions) Act 1991, Schedule 1).

 

A byway open to all traffic is sometimes waymarked using a red arrow on a metal or plastic disc or by red paint dots on gateposts or trees.

 

Roads used as public paths

 

A road used as public path (RUPP) was one of the three types of public right of way (along with footpaths and bridleways) introduced by the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. The Countryside Act 1968 required all highway authorities to reclassify RUPPs in their area – occasionally as public footpaths but in practice generally as public bridleways unless public vehicular rights were demonstrated to exist in which case it would become a Byway Open to All Traffic.

 

This process was slow as it involved research into historic usage and often public enquiries, and so was not completed by the time the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 was passed. This reclassified all remaining RUPPs as Restricted Byways on 2 May 2006.

 

Restricted byways

 

On 2 May 2006 the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 reclassified all remaining Roads Used as Public Paths as restricted byways. The public's rights along a restricted byway are to travel:

 

A ) on foot

B ) on horseback or leading a horse

C ) by any vehicle (e.g. bicycles, horse-drawn carriages) OTHER than mechanically propelled vehicles (e.g. motorbikes or cars)

Edited January 23, 2008 by Von-Horst

[Copepod]

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.

 

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.

 

Another reason for cycling on the road rather than the parallel bike path / pavement is that cycling along the road, you do not have to stop and give way at each junction - it is a waste of momentum to stop at every junction. Also, some cycle paths have overhanging branches - brambles are particularly nasty - occasionally I make a special trip, carrying secateurs to correct the situation. Not sure that I agree about the surface being better, though, as the edge of a road often has more debris, broken glass, standing water etc.

[+keehotee]

is that cycling along the road, you do not have to stop and give way at each junction - it is a waste of momentum to stop at every junction

 

Ummmmmmmmm....I think you'll find you do - unless you want to end up as a bonnet ornament

Don't get me wrong - I'm a long term, all weathers and all traffic die-hard cyclist - but if you ride on the road (NOT the pavement) you ride by the same rules as all other road users.

If I'm going to end up splatted, or at best looking at replacing one of my bikes, I want it to be the other persons fault!

[+La Fifi]

Saw one of these just outside Helmsley at the weekend....d'you think this might cause less damage?

 

[+Happy Humphrey]

Actually, I kept an eye open for cycling-related erosion along the Thames Path recently. This is the time of year when most of the wear takes place as the ground is so soft. There is plenty of erosion due to foot traffic, but that's as nothing compared to the cutting of channels by tyres - even though there's hardly ever a cyclist in sight and walkers are passing by all the time. Photos to follow.

December 2007;

January 2008;

 

Not many footprints even though these were all footpaths (no cycling allowed!). The walkers (including me) were mostly using the grass at the edge of the path so as to avoid getting too muddy. Without the bikes the grass would have been right across the path. I didn't see any bikes all day on both occasions, but dozens of walkers.

I have plenty more examples, but I think that this is enough...

Edited January 23, 2008 by Happy Humphrey

[+Moote]

I was once walking under a railway bridge, when a youth cycled towards me on the pavement at great speed. I could not go anywhere as there was the wall of the bridge and a metal railings the other side, with a 2ft path

 

Using quick thinking, I grabbed the cyclist by the neck as he came towards me and jumped at the same time. He came to a quick rest, and said "What was that for"

 

I replied pointing at the ground, "Footpath, not cycle path", then pointed at me and said "Psychopath"

 

I think he learned a lesson

Edited January 23, 2008 by Moote

[Deceangi]

As this topic appears to have run it's course, I'm closing it