Search found 17134 matches

by pwa
14 Mar 2024, 10:33pm
Forum: The Tea Shop
Topic: The "Royals" Thread
Replies: 1350
Views: 54527

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Bonefishblues wrote: 14 Mar 2024, 8:20pm Fairly or not she was criticised for delaying her visit for 8 days though.
A daft criticism, I have always thought. During that first week, unless she turned up with a spade and ready to dig, what was she going to do, except hinder proceedings? I have never heard serious criticism of her, here in S Wales, for that delay. All the serious criticism was directed at the Coal Board, for allowing the disaster to happen, and the Labour Government for clawing back funds raised for the community in the aftermath.
by pwa
13 Mar 2024, 10:14am
Forum: Campaigning & Public Policy
Topic: Filthy bridleway
Replies: 56
Views: 2111

Re: Filthy bridleway

rareposter wrote: 13 Mar 2024, 9:44am
pwa wrote: 13 Mar 2024, 9:08am if signage does not indicate otherwise, I would take to have tacit acceptance of cycling. Where the tracks seem to be of adequate width to allow walkers and sensible cyclists to pass comfortably. That is my default approach in public access forests without signage to indicate otherwise.
I agree with that comment and in fact if a signposted FP is of suitable width and surface to permit cycling, I'll often just ride it - with suitable regard to weather conditions, how busy it is and so on.

Not far from mine there's a stretch of moor with two parallel tracks, one a well-surfaced FP, one a muddy BW. The BW is the legal route for bikes. No cyclist uses it because it's on a peat / grass base, is muddy, bumpy and slow. The FP is on a rock base so its pretty much impervious to erosion, it's wide and well-cared for cos it can (at popular times) get a lot of walkers along it but at quiet times, given a choice of the two, which would you ride?!

No-one bothers about it, the legal designation is effectively understood to be a historical hangover from way before bikes were invented so the sensible approach prevails.

In fact, the more cyclists ride routes like that, the more clout there is to get trails upgraded. This case for example:
https://www.cyclinguk.org/blog/success- ... walla-crag
The whole Rights of Way thing is a bit of a tangle of imperfect law and varied practice, wonderful but deeply flawed, and a bit of discretion is required to get the best out of it. To go to an extreme example to illustrate a point, a Public Footpath that I would definitely not cycle on is a stretch of the Wales Coast Path a couple of miles from here, where the surface is dense clay (slippery after rain, soft after weeks of rain) and the path is a narrow channel between a fence and gorse/ blackthorn. It is well used by walkers. Opposing walkers can pass with care, but the introduction of wide MTB bars would create an awkwardness that would be unwelcome. If that stretch ever became popular with MTBers (which it, to their credit, hasn't) that would be a cause of friction.https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4001746 ... ?entry=ttu

But as you say, other Public Footpaths are different. It is a case by case thing. And many Public Footpaths are officially open to cycling because of other reasons. I will be walking on one such this afternoon, in publicly owned forestry. And if I meet anyone on a bike, from experience I can say that I will gather up my whippet, the cyclist will say thank you, we will probably find something friendly to say to each other, and everyone will be happy.
by pwa
13 Mar 2024, 9:08am
Forum: Campaigning & Public Policy
Topic: Filthy bridleway
Replies: 56
Views: 2111

Re: Filthy bridleway

jgurney wrote: 12 Mar 2024, 10:51pm
drossall wrote: 12 Mar 2024, 10:15pm
Pete Owens wrote: 12 Mar 2024, 10:04pmBut just because a route is designated as a public footpath does not mean of itself that cycling is illegal. For that you need explicit no cycling signs.
I'm not sure I understand this. As I see it, if a route is designated as a public footpath, there is no more reason to believe that cycling is allowed than for cutting across a random field where no rights of way are designated at all. That way lies anarchy, surely? Unless we are going to deny property rights at all, we have to have some respect and ride where we actively know that we are allowed to do so, rather than anywhere except where we know that we cannot.
You are both right. A route being a public footpath does not create any reason to suppose that cycling is allowed there, and neither does it of itself mean that cycling there would be an unlawful act.

A public footpath may, for example, also be a permissive bridleway or pass over land owned by a local authority (e.g. in a park) which allows cycling there without creating any permanent right to do so.

I tend to agree that in the absence of reasons to think otherwise it is wiser to proceed on the assumption that cycling is not allowed anywhere which is not a highway or other right of way.
Me too. But in the case outlined in the original post, we seem to have a block of forest with a Restricted Byway (green light for cycling) and other tracks that, if signage does not indicate otherwise, I would take to have tacit acceptance of cycling. Where the tracks seem to be of adequate width to allow walkers and sensible cyclists to pass comfortably. That is my default approach in public access forests without signage to indicate otherwise.
by pwa
12 Mar 2024, 6:57pm
Forum: Campaigning & Public Policy
Topic: Filthy bridleway
Replies: 56
Views: 2111

Re: Filthy bridleway

Nearholmer wrote: 12 Mar 2024, 5:54pm If ever I do get taken to court over pushing my bike along a rural footpath, I shall argue in my defence that a bike is very much my usual accompaniment when walking in the country, because the only reason I walk in the country is to get between bits of bridleway where I cycle. Anyone’s guess as to whether it will succeed as a defence.
The chances of you being asked not to push your bike on a public footpath are vanishingly small. People are more likely to appreciate you getting off and walking, making things safer and easier for other walkers.
by pwa
12 Mar 2024, 1:36pm
Forum: Campaigning & Public Policy
Topic: Filthy bridleway
Replies: 56
Views: 2111

Re: Filthy bridleway

531colin wrote: 12 Mar 2024, 1:16pm Where is "Third crank" when we need him?

As far as I am aware, there has never been a case brought against anybody for cycling on a public footpath, or pushing a bicycle. (as opposed to a footway next to a road)
Also, as far as I am aware, it is (assumed to be?) legal to walk on a footpath taking with you stuff which is "normal" for a pedestrian to take with them, including a pram, pushchair, or wheelchair, although there is no requirement for the landowner to provide a gate for access.
It used to be widely said that the "normal" things you could take with you on a Public Footpath might include an umbrella or a dog, though I never saw a list of things you couldn't take, by right. It was also often said that you couldn't take a bicycle on a Public Footpath, by right, even if dismounted. But I have no idea where this comes from, or if it is correct. Personally, I have always taken the view that a dismounted cyclist is in fact a pedestrian, so ought to be okay even where cycling is frowned upon.

But the track in this case is a Restricted Byway, so open to cycling.
by pwa
12 Mar 2024, 10:50am
Forum: On the road
Topic: Knee protection please
Replies: 39
Views: 1726

Re: Knee protection please

I have fallen a few times, but never injured my knees. I've had badly bruised hips, banged elbows, and superficial scraping of hands, but never knee damage.
by pwa
12 Mar 2024, 10:31am
Forum: Campaigning & Public Policy
Topic: Filthy bridleway
Replies: 56
Views: 2111

Re: Filthy bridleway

AndyK wrote: 10 Mar 2024, 7:57pm
Mykidsdad wrote: 10 Mar 2024, 8:56am Also read a 1995 Hampshire CC report where it was proposed to redesignate the path as a restricted byway. Loved the determination shown by the landowner:

"I have been quietly working to try to stop cyclists from bicycling over the footpath, and at last the Forestry Commission have padlocked their gate. Mr Rathbone has approached the Administration Manager at the Chilworth Research Centre and asked for co-operation to inform their employees that they are not entitled to cycle along the track and this has had a considerable measure of success. I estimate I have reduced the incidents of bicycling from approximately a hundred a day to a hard core of about ten who dispute their right to cycle over the footpath.”

100 a day... Blimey.
Ah, but things moved on after that.

Here's a formal report to the HCC Regulatory Committee in 2013, recommending that the Definitive Map of rights of way be redrawn to show Lordswood Lane as a restricted byway, ratehr than a footpath. It provides a potted history of the path dating back to 1755 to support its conclusion, which (I believe) was accepted by the Committee - and that's why HCC's Definitive Map now shows it as a restricted byway, as do current OS maps. https://www.hants.gov.uk/get-decision-d ... f&type=pdf

Incidentally, when a council does this, it doesn't mean it's decided to "upgrade" the path's status. What it means is that someone (either the council itself or a "claimant") has amassed enough historical evidence to show that it's always been regarded as a byway (or bridleway etc.) over many years, and should have been shown as such on the Definitive Map to start with. Marking it as a footpath was a mistake, so the Definitive Map needs to be corrected.
This reminds me of an amusing case not for from here, near the village of Blackmill, north of Bridgend, where a landowner fenced off a formerly well used track / lane that older folk could remember having used to walk to school. Barbed wire with big dogs roaming loose really meant that nobody was going to just push through. On the maps at the time I think it was down as bridleway. The case dragged on for about ten years, then the courts decided it was in fact a BOAT! So the landowner, by having tried to keep out walkers, horse riders and cyclists, had ended up having to restore the track to be able to take everything up to and including 4x4s! I found that very funny at the time.

If the track discussed here were just a bridleway, I'd be inclined to say that the mud is just something to put up with at this time of year, if the landowner isn't minded to allow upgrading. The law does not require bridleways to be cyclable. But as it is in fact restricted byway, the legal situation may be different. I don't know.

https://www.google.com/maps/@50.9473616 ... ?entry=ttu
This looks like the area concerned.

Maybe this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rhby3SjzsZw
by pwa
12 Mar 2024, 9:33am
Forum: Campaigning & Public Policy
Topic: Filthy bridleway
Replies: 56
Views: 2111

Re: Filthy bridleway

Nearholmer wrote: 11 Mar 2024, 10:46pm And, as if all that wasn’t muddy enough, there are public footpaths where the landowner has explicitly granted permission for people to ride bikes, which is potentially very confusing.

I only realised this because there is one very close to where I live, which I cycle along every time I go to the “corner shop”, and if I go when I often do, I meet the local PCSO cycling the other way. It’s shown on OS maps as a footpath, and at one end has a finger post saying so, but it’s shown as available for cycling on council maps, and it seems that the land belongs to the parks trust, which has granted cycling privileges everywhere except where signposts forbid.
So a legally similar situation to publicly owned forestry estates (NR Wales, around here) where cycling and horse riding on any path or track is allowed as default, except where specifically closed for felling or whatever.
by pwa
12 Mar 2024, 9:29am
Forum: Bikes & Bits – Technical section
Topic: Why not have dual front discs?
Replies: 21
Views: 1283

Re: Why not have dual front discs?

Extra weight, wider front end, more gubbins to maintain, more expense.
by pwa
10 Mar 2024, 4:24pm
Forum: On the road
Topic: Knee protection please
Replies: 39
Views: 1726

Re: Knee protection please

Pinhead wrote: 9 Mar 2024, 2:42pm Reasonable cost thanks

I fall off, usually once every ride LOL, either starting or stopping, cambers, hill turning round, yes I know, I am not however asking for advice on that so...

Knee protection, I see many professionals use knee protection, I also ride on places such as the video, any advice please on reasonable knee protection, eg what about these, (or similar) can I have advice from "users" please.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Bodyprox-Prote ... 9hdGY&th=1


https://youtu.be/WVkgaoL9hw0
All the cycling knee pads (and other protection for the body, other than the head) that I have seen in use have been worn by MTBers doing mainly downhill extreme stuff at speed, and not by cyclists doing a lot of pedalling to get somewhere. I'm not sure guards of that sort would be comfortable to wear for normal cycling. But if you want to give them a go, Leisure Lakes sell that sort of gear.
by pwa
7 Mar 2024, 7:17pm
Forum: The Tea Shop
Topic: What Has Made You Laugh Today ?
Replies: 1465
Views: 95941

Re: What Has Made You Laugh Today ?

thomacycle wrote: 7 Mar 2024, 1:43pm
pwa wrote: 5 Mar 2024, 2:48pm https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-68480196
Well it made me laugh, anyway.
I would feel very scared if it occurred to me as well. It is fortunate that she can find humor in what happened. Thanks for sharing, it made me smile.
It is one of those mishaps that are funny if you know that the outcome was okay.
by pwa
5 Mar 2024, 9:57pm
Forum: Bikes & Bits – Technical section
Topic: New Bike Thoughts and advice
Replies: 37
Views: 1552

Re: New Bike Thoughts and advice

PaulK wrote: 5 Mar 2024, 9:36pm To be honest im really not thinking about adding mud-guards.
This is only my opinion, but yes they may stop a bit of wet and mud (and may keep the bike cleaner) passing cars have always done an admirable job of soaking me...
Even if you wait until the rain finishes before you start off, having full (not short) guards stops the front wheel sending spray off a wet and dirty road up towards your shins, and stops the rear wheel sending spray to make a dirty stripe up your back. But if you can live with that, the choice is yours.
by pwa
5 Mar 2024, 7:04pm
Forum: Bikes & Bits – Technical section
Topic: New Bike Thoughts and advice
Replies: 37
Views: 1552

Re: New Bike Thoughts and advice

How fit are you, and do you intend cycling in hilly places?

Good steel frames aren't much heavier than most aluminium frames, so don't discount them.

I think your idea of a gravel bike is a sound one. With the right tyres they can be good on road, but they have the ability to take bigger tyres for rougher tracks. Which just about covers most of the leisure cycling most people do.
by pwa
5 Mar 2024, 5:04pm
Forum: The Tea Shop
Topic: Braverman: Rise of the Fascists
Replies: 1299
Views: 70628

Re: Braverman: Rise of the Fascists

roubaixtuesday wrote: 5 Mar 2024, 4:53pm ......Yes, I agree. But it requires a government to allow asylum applications from France *without* being picked up - and likely an increase in successful asylum applications. Which is the opposite of current policy.
Possibly. But I wonder how many, and how they could relate to our current need for people to do certain jobs, and young people to make up for the UK birth rate being below par. In short, could some of the extra legitimate asylum seekers replace purely economic migration that we currently experience? I don't know the answer to that. I expect the "fit" won't be completely right. But it might work in part. I don't think we will plug the nursing shortage that way, but the answer to that one is to make the profession a rewarding one that established citizens want to do.
by pwa
5 Mar 2024, 4:45pm
Forum: The Tea Shop
Topic: Braverman: Rise of the Fascists
Replies: 1299
Views: 70628

Re: Braverman: Rise of the Fascists

roubaixtuesday wrote: 5 Mar 2024, 4:34pm
pwa wrote: 5 Mar 2024, 3:11pm
roubaixtuesday wrote: 5 Mar 2024, 2:56pm

A scheme that brings no benefit to anyone, is divisive in the country, designed to exploit and sow hatred of foreigners? Being done purely for party advantage?

Surely the Great British Public would instantly see through such a knavish plot!
Any degree of popularity for the scheme (which I agree is misconceived) comes from the lack of a proper disincentive for people trying to use the small boats route, other than the danger. Once on UK shores, removal is very unlikely. The sensible solution would be an agreement with the French for anyone picked up from such a crossing to be taken straight back to France, but with an appointment with UK migration officials on French soil, so that they can put in a request for asylum. With the alternative of seeking that same appointment on French soil without doing the small boat thing at all. That would make the small boat route a lot less attractive.
I think there's a couple of fatal flaws here.

First, "the alternative of seeking that same appointment on French soil without doing the small boat thing at all. " is absolutely not on offer from the UK govt. Quite the opposite - there is currently almost no way for anyone to come to the UK to claim asylum.

Second, these people are prepared to risk death to get here. It seems vanishingly unlikely that a tiny chance of going to Rwanda will dissuade anyone (because very few ever will go to Rwanda, even if the scheme happens)

Third, France already takes twice as many refugees as the UK. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... population What's their incentive to further increase that?
But what I am suggesting is that the Government should be pursuing this sort of arrangement with the French, instead of pratting around with their ludicrous Rwanda scheme. The only obstacle is in persuading the French to play ball. If this did happen there would be an instant disincentive for people to risk the small boat route, because that route would end in failure every time. Picked up at sea: straight back to France to make a proper request for asylum. Picked up on an English beach: straight back to France to make a proper request for asylum. Every time. Why would anyone risk doing that dangerous crossing if it always ends with a return to France? The next question would be for the government of the day, and it would be regarding whose applications for asylum should be granted. And that is another topic....