Should CTC campaign for cyclists to use all footpaths?

[EdinburghFixed]

Should CTC campaign for all cyclists to be permitted to use all footpaths?

It is legal, isn't it - as far as I'm aware it's only trespassing (a civil matter, not a criminal offence). So if the farmer, or whoever takes issue with it, you just have to leave. It's only illegal on actual pavement, which runs parallel to a road.

In practical terms I doubt there is much appetite to change this since the right-to-roam legislation was pretty recent. Happily in Scotland there is no problem cycling wherever you please. That expensive parliment building was good for something anyway!

[Edwards]

Taken from the Road Traffic Act 1989 rule 192

footpath”, in relation to England and Wales, means a way over which the public have a right of way on foot only,

[Mick F]

the time has come for CTC to campaign for all cyclists to be permitted to use all footpaths?

NO WAY!!!!!!
Bicycles are vehicles and should be on the ROAD!!!!!
The more that bicycles use the road, the more that other road-users will accept them.

[EdinburghFixed]

Now Mick, mountain bikes are hardly designed to be used on the road, are they?

It's a shame that the idea of sharing our natural heritage seems to be uniquely a Scottish one (or to be more accurate, an idea which doesn't include England and Wales, since it's very well tolerated almost everywhere else).

Taken from the Road Traffic Act 1989 rule 192

footpath”, in relation to England and Wales, means a way over which the public have a right of way on foot only,

It's exactly the same deal when we go kayaking. Nowhere in the world is it a big deal except in England, where every two-bit landowner thinks that having the money gives them the right to deny access to our shared natural heritage. So there is a right of way to run along like a madman carrying your bike, but not to ride it. If I could be forgiven a stereotype, only the English think this is a sensible arrangement.

I say, if you're being responsible about it then there should be no moral problem over getting out and enjoying the countryside. Let the 18th century attitudes go, the serfs have been free for a while now

[richardyorkshire]

Bicycles shouldn't be allowed on footpaths. Footpaths are narrow tracks that lead hither and thither over hill and dale. They are there for walkers, not for cyclists.

We have motorways for motorised vehicles. We have roads for all vehicles (including bicycles), horses and walkers. We have bridleways for horses, cyclists and walkers. And we have footpaths for walkers. That seems to me like a pefectly sensible hierarchy.

CTC should not campaign for cyclists to go on footpaths. Instead it should campaign for more bridleways, allowing cyclists to access more of the countryside on routes that are suitable for mountain bikers.

There may be some current footpaths that are suitable for reclassifying as bridleways. But leave most footpaths as footpaths.

[rbrian]

If you mean footpaths off the road, in fields and so on, then would you also allow horses? When I used to ride mountain bikes, I was lucky enough to live close to a couple of different woods, great places to ride. I was never sure what was a footpath and what was a bridleway, but I always slowed down and gave way to pedestrians, none of whom complained about my being there. If the path is so busy with walkers that it causes grief for everyone, it's probably best not to ride there. If it's quiet enough, and you're careful enough, that nobody complains, then I don't see that it really matters whether you're allowed to be there or not. You can always carry your bike, then it's luggage, no rules against that.

If you mean pavements alongside the road, then most of the time the road is the best place to be. Those places where the traffic is too fast, the pavement is generally empty, so it can be safer there - and there is nobody to complain.

[DaveP]

leave most footpaths as footpaths

Absolutely!
When there is nowhere left to go where you dont have to keep an eye out for wheeled vehicles then we'll really have lost something important.

[kwackers]

NO WAY!!!!!!
Bicycles are vehicles and should be on the ROAD!!!!!
The more that bicycles use the road, the more that other road-users will accept them.

Sorry Mick, but as a viewpoint it's far too idealistic. Whilst there's no fault in the logic of your statement, force all bicycles onto roads and I guarantee you'll see a fall in bicycle use. Even cyclists who mainly use the road will sometimes use sections of footpaths to avoid particularly dodgy junctions etc. Take that away and it's quite likely some will decide to find alternative means of travel.

Even though I don't use footpaths/pavements etc I don't feel I could condemn someone who did (with the proviso they apply due care and diligence).

[Velorum]

My view is that using pavements is not really a problem if it is done thoughtfully. I have used sections of pavement to avoid nasty road situations for nearly 30 years - I either slow right down or dismount when encountering other users and nod or smile. Ive seldom encountered problems.

[irc]

Bicycles shouldn't be allowed on footpaths. Footpaths are narrow tracks that lead hither and thither over hill and dale.

In fact ideal mountain biking routes. There is a great sense of freedom in Scotland to know that with a few exceptions you can go anywhere on foot or on bike. Whether there is a path there or not. In practise I stick mainly to tracks and paths but knowing I can walk or cycle over any pasture, hill or moor I want to is important.

Landowners own the land. They don't own the access.

[Mick F]

My stance is to to with footpaths. ie where people walk on foot.

Are we all talking about Public Footpaths? I'm not. I'm talking about footpaths. Note the distinction.

If we're talking about Public Footpaths, there is a clear and definite law. Foot only. Full stop. If you don't like that, change the law.

If we're talking about footpaths, we may be talking about pavements, or anywhere that people walk. I for one do not want cyclists, as vehicles, interrupting the free flow of people walking where it is safe for all folk to walk of any age or any reason or in any place. Having cyclists charging up and down only gives cyclists a dangerous and aggressive persona. What about shopping precincts and malls? What about pavements and pedestrian crossings?

footpaths, or Public Footpaths?

[drossall]

With pavements, we need to bear in mind that it is generally more dangerous to ride on them than on the adjacent road. There's a problem here - inexperienced riders want to be able to use pavements, but it's not necessarily in their best interests. This makes it difficult to campaign for or oppose such facilities.

For country footpaths, I think I'd rather leave them to walkers.

[EdinburghFixed]

leave most footpaths as footpaths

Absolutely!
When there is nowhere left to go where you dont have to keep an eye out for wheeled vehicles then we'll really have lost something important.

Where? Someone should tell us Scots, as we have exactly the situation you describe!

We hike and ride off road, and the world hasn't ended yet. In fact, the most shocking damage to the environment is always around high concentrations of walkers, not cyclists. The trails at Glentress are immaculate compared with Ben Nevis.

We rode across Rannoch Moor and down the West Highland Way at New Year, and very fine it was too. In fact, I find the idea that I have more right to walk than I do to ride bizarre - and I'm speaking as a part-time Munro bagger here. Neither do I think any of my friends would feel outraged to find a horse going cross country (after all, we have 300,000 red deer doing it all the time). The idea that the mode someone uses to get around, should discriminate against them makes little sense to me.

Although we're not talking about pavements here, I am reminded of the moral outrage that cycling on a pavement brings from all sides, until some clerk at the council signs a form making it a cycle path, with no other changes whatsoever, and suddenly it is ok. I try to base my morals on something more solid than the fickleness of the law.

[drossall]

Having previously put the opposite point of view, I was swayed by everything you said until the last bit. Everyone setting their own morals and laws is called anarchy. Laws are, at least in principle, society's shared expectations. There is a morality in considering other people by obeying those shared standards.

[Mick F]

Agree.

Footpaths are for feet, not tyres. If the law was to be reviewed, I for one would object to any change in the law.