CTC view on public footpaths
CTC view on public footpaths
This was released in October, what do people think of it?
http://www.ctc.org.uk/campaigning/views-and-briefings/public-footpaths-england-wales
http://www.ctc.org.uk/campaigning/views-and-briefings/public-footpaths-england-wales
Re: CTC view on public footpaths
Broadly agree.
There is no distinction between FP and BW classification in terms of fitness for purpose in 99% of the cases, the classification is normally the result of historical chance. Thus to suggest that letting bikes on FPs will ruin them doesn't stand up, if anything it will lessen any damage done as the load is shared over a much larger network.
In terms of walker biker conflict, again, this might be reduced as a much larger network will be open to cyclists. It will also help with any perceived horse bike conflict. There will be honey stops that are particularly popular with both bikes and walkers, but these might be regulated as special cases, like Snowdon or Cardingmill Valley.
There might be some paths that are more susceptible to damage by bikes. This is also true of BWs (although horse damage is generally much worse). Thus a rethink on access, based on a susceptibility measurement rather than just historical chance, could well serve to make the network better for everyone and improve the quality of the tracks.
There is no distinction between FP and BW classification in terms of fitness for purpose in 99% of the cases, the classification is normally the result of historical chance. Thus to suggest that letting bikes on FPs will ruin them doesn't stand up, if anything it will lessen any damage done as the load is shared over a much larger network.
In terms of walker biker conflict, again, this might be reduced as a much larger network will be open to cyclists. It will also help with any perceived horse bike conflict. There will be honey stops that are particularly popular with both bikes and walkers, but these might be regulated as special cases, like Snowdon or Cardingmill Valley.
There might be some paths that are more susceptible to damage by bikes. This is also true of BWs (although horse damage is generally much worse). Thus a rethink on access, based on a susceptibility measurement rather than just historical chance, could well serve to make the network better for everyone and improve the quality of the tracks.
-
- Posts: 2749
- Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm
Re: CTC view on public footpaths
It could deivery a debate.
http://www.squidoo.com/dutchbikes
How many signs are there in the UK saying 'No cycling' compared with other countries, on a per million population basis?
Starting by creating a better understanding between cycling and walking is needed.
Cycling and walking training should cover the issues involved.
Bikes should probably have bells.
A set of requirements could be considered for if a footpath was suitable for upgrading to non-motorised use. A foot-cycle-path sign perhaps (not including horses), speed limit?
http://www.squidoo.com/dutchbikes
How many signs are there in the UK saying 'No cycling' compared with other countries, on a per million population basis?
Starting by creating a better understanding between cycling and walking is needed.
Cycling and walking training should cover the issues involved.
Bikes should probably have bells.
A set of requirements could be considered for if a footpath was suitable for upgrading to non-motorised use. A foot-cycle-path sign perhaps (not including horses), speed limit?
Re: CTC view on public footpaths
Mass trespass anyone?
Re: CTC view on public footpaths
hexhome wrote:Mass trespass anyone?
I think I would find that irresistible.
For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled - Richard Feynman
Re: CTC view on public footpaths
I agree with the strategy. There is however bound to be conflict between different users and I think a well publicised code of conduct would be a good idea.
Educating new (and existing) cyclists is also important. Cyclist in the City blogged on the tolerance in Japan towards cycling but the Telegraph reported that the Japan earthquake resulted in a growth in cyclists and call for bicycle numberplates to improve the behaviour of the new cyclists.
Educating new (and existing) cyclists is also important. Cyclist in the City blogged on the tolerance in Japan towards cycling but the Telegraph reported that the Japan earthquake resulted in a growth in cyclists and call for bicycle numberplates to improve the behaviour of the new cyclists.
For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled - Richard Feynman
Re: CTC view on public footpaths
I dont like the idea. It could have quite a bad effect on peoples' enjoyment of going out for a stroll or a jog.
Too often on here we have comments posted about "ignorant peds" walking along in a dream world with their dogs loose or on a triprope lead. About children running wild, day dreamers with walkmans on failing to notice that a cycle wants to pass.
I reckon that they should be free to carry on doing so on their footpaths, they have already lost such peace of mind almost everywhere else.
I do think that it is rather easy to say that cycles dont cause much erosion when it is somebody else's land. I can sympathise that a landowner may not agree as they have to shoulder the damage.
Shortly after some such ruling came into force would people then be obliged to make everywhere reasonably accessible by cycle and then shortly afterwards by tandem, trike and trailer, then by wheel chair?
We have access to bridleways, free roaming of Forestry Commission land and shouldnt be getting greedy for the footpaths (same goes for the equestrians).
Too often on here we have comments posted about "ignorant peds" walking along in a dream world with their dogs loose or on a triprope lead. About children running wild, day dreamers with walkmans on failing to notice that a cycle wants to pass.
I reckon that they should be free to carry on doing so on their footpaths, they have already lost such peace of mind almost everywhere else.
I do think that it is rather easy to say that cycles dont cause much erosion when it is somebody else's land. I can sympathise that a landowner may not agree as they have to shoulder the damage.
Shortly after some such ruling came into force would people then be obliged to make everywhere reasonably accessible by cycle and then shortly afterwards by tandem, trike and trailer, then by wheel chair?
We have access to bridleways, free roaming of Forestry Commission land and shouldnt be getting greedy for the footpaths (same goes for the equestrians).
Yma o Hyd
Re: CTC view on public footpaths
I think that we cyclists have plenty of bridleways and tracks to enjoy already. I am a walker too and I would strongly oppose this policy. I don't want to be walking along a footpath having to be constantly alert for a silent cyclist coming from behind. For old people who don't see or hear so well, and many many old people are walkers, such a move would be not only unwelcome but dangerous. A broken hip or limb can so easily kill someone frail.
I would personally vigourously oppose such a move. I think when it comes to the notice of the Ramblers its dead in the water anyway. I am surprised and dismayed that the Cyclists Tourist Club is putting forward such a stupid self centred policy. No wonder the public is increasingly hacked off with cyclists!
Al
I would personally vigourously oppose such a move. I think when it comes to the notice of the Ramblers its dead in the water anyway. I am surprised and dismayed that the Cyclists Tourist Club is putting forward such a stupid self centred policy. No wonder the public is increasingly hacked off with cyclists!
Al
Reuse, recycle, thus do your bit to save the planet.... Get stuff at auctions, Dump, Charity Shops, Facebook Marketplace, Ebay, Car Boots. Choose an Old House, and a Banger ..... And cycle as often as you can......
Re: CTC view on public footpaths
al_yrpal wrote:I think that we cyclists have plenty of bridleways and tracks to enjoy already.
meic wrote:We have access to bridleways, free roaming of Forestry Commission land and shouldnt be getting greedy for the footpaths (same goes for the equestrians).
You may have but others don't. The BW network is very patchy with some places having hardly any.
meic wrote:I dont like the idea. It could have quite a bad effect on peoples' enjoyment of going out for a stroll or a jog.
al_yrpal wrote:I am a walker too and I would strongly oppose this policy. I don't want to be walking along a footpath having to be constantly alert for a silent cyclist coming from behind. For old people who don't see or hear so well, and many many old people are walkers, such a move would be not only unwelcome but dangerous. A broken hip or limb can so easily kill someone frail.
Yet there seem to be few confrontation problems on the BW network. And allowing cyclists to use FPs would spread them thinner thus reducing the likelihood of walkers meeting them on many paths. Obviously there are always going to be careless trail users, but the careless minority among cyclists are the ones that don't care for rules anyway and so are already using FPs.
al_yrpal wrote: I am surprised and dismayed that the Cyclists Tourist Club is putting forward such a stupid self centred policy. No wonder the public is increasingly hacked off with cyclists!
I'm afraid that you saying it is 'stupid' doesn't make it so. As for 'self centred' yes, it serves the needs of cyclists, but as already outlined it can also benefit the access network too, and everyone who uses it. And I would suggest that the public is not becoming 'increasingly hacked off' with cyclists out on the trails, if anything the opposite is true. Back in the early days of MTBing we did have a lot of people wanting to see us off the tracks that we have a legitimate right to use, but these days, apart from the dyed-in-the-wool NIMBYs and professional complainers, there is much less conflict as people find that they can share the network in peace and harmony.
meic wrote:I do think that it is rather easy to say that cycles dont cause much erosion when it is somebody else's land. I can sympathise that a landowner may not agree as they have to shoulder the damage.
No one is saying that cycles don't cause erosion...they patently do, just as horses, walkers, wild animals and the weather do. But in opening up more FPs to cyclists the erosion that they cause will not be so concentrated and thus will have a lesser effect. Especially if some sort of grading could be done to only let cyclists onto tracks that were better able to take the use.
If everyone is careful and considerate of others' needs then there should be no reason why we can't all share the many wonderful tracks out there. Live and let live.
Re: CTC view on public footpaths
There was a 2010 briefing document here - http://www.ctc.org.uk/resources/Campaig ... s__brf.pdf - but the link is now broken.
I can't recall the detail but I expect CTC's simply made a small but significant move from briefing doc to policy doc.
I can't recall the detail but I expect CTC's simply made a small but significant move from briefing doc to policy doc.
High on a cocktail of flossy teacakes and marmalade
Re: CTC view on public footpaths
No one is saying that cycles don't cause erosion...they patently do, just as horses, walkers, wild animals and the weather do. But in opening up more FPs to cyclists the erosion that they cause will not be so concentrated and thus will have a lesser effect. Especially if some sort of grading could be done to only let cyclists onto tracks that were better able to take the use.
Yes but a landowner with a footpath on their property has a property with a footpath on it rather than a bridleway and it isnt much consolation to them, to know that another landowner, somewhere else, who has a bridleway on theirs now has less traffic.
I am a supporter of cycling but not at the expense of walking. Just as cars have driven cyclists from their roads, this (along with dual use pavements) will be driving pedestrians off their footpaths (and pavements).
Yma o Hyd
Re: CTC view on public footpaths
The main pedestrian shopping thoroughfare in Reading is plagued by cyclists who ignore the no cycling signs. That is why councils are seeking powers to be able to fine these people. The towpath in Henley is also plagued by them. It's dangerous. All the time you see people cycling on pavements in local towns. If you challenge them you get abuse, this is what gets us a bad name. I cannot understand how some cyclists cannot seem to understand this, its as though they are in denial. It's just a fact of life that many of our towns cannot have cycle paths installed, it would be prohibitively expensive to construct them. The best that we can campaign for is that cyclists needs ARE considered in any new road scheme or redevelopment and that cycle commuting routes are made safer. I would like to see the CTC focussing on this rather than trying to erode the pleasure of a stress free peaceful safe walk on a footpath. Around here where men with clipboards have constructed these shared use tarmac paths it has been a disaster for pedestrians and damaged the rural landscape replacing natural paths with bollards, warning signs, litter bins and other unwelcome urbanisation. Personally I avoid such places like the plague. Just as we seperate motor vehicles and pedestrians we should seperate cyclists and pedestrians wherever possible. If all cyclists were responsible and treated pedestrians with care and respect this wouldn't be necessary , but they don't.
Al
Al
Reuse, recycle, thus do your bit to save the planet.... Get stuff at auctions, Dump, Charity Shops, Facebook Marketplace, Ebay, Car Boots. Choose an Old House, and a Banger ..... And cycle as often as you can......
Re: CTC view on public footpaths
Yet there seem to be few confrontation problems on the BW network. And allowing cyclists to use FPs would spread them thinner thus reducing the likelihood of walkers meeting them on many paths. Obviously there are always going to be careless trail users, but the careless minority among cyclists are the ones that don't care for rules anyway and so are already using FPs.
There are few confrontations between motorists and pedestrians on our rural lanes, because the majority of the walkers have been driven from them.
I also assume that a bridleway will be rather a bit wider than a footpaths is.
I dont know if walkers already avoid well used bridleways to avoid hassle of conflicts with horses and cyclists but if so they will react to this move rather like the cornered rats that this will make them into.
I have no wish to make enemies out of those who I have always seen as like minded people in the countryside. I dont think that the blame can be put on them for not willing to share as it would not really be sharing at all, unless cyclists had a 4mph restriction and had to step aside and let oncoming walkers pass before continuing.
Yma o Hyd
Re: CTC view on public footpaths
meic wrote:Shortly after some such ruling came into force would people then be obliged to make everywhere reasonably accessible by cycle and then shortly afterwards by tandem, trike and trailer, then by wheel chair?
There's no reason to expect that. The 1968 Countryside Act did not create any such obligation in respect of bridleways.
30 Riding of pedal bicycles on bridleways.E+W.
(1)Any member of the public shall have, as a right of way, the right to ride a bicycle, [F85not being a mechanically propelled vehicle], on any bridleway, but in exercising that right cyclists shall give way to pedestrians and persons on horseback. .
(2)Subsection (1) above has effect subject to any orders made by a local authority, and to any byelaws. .
(3)The rights conferred by this section shall not affect the obligations of the highway authority, or of any other person, as respects the maintenance of the bridleway, and this section shall not create any obligation to do anything to facilitate the use of the bridleway by cyclists. .
(4)Subsection (1) above shall not affect any definition of “bridleway” in this or any other Act. .
[F86(5)In this section “mechanically propelled vehicle” does not include a vehicle falling within paragraph (c) of section 189(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988.]
High on a cocktail of flossy teacakes and marmalade
Re: CTC view on public footpaths
Maintenance and access are not the same thing.
A landowner may not need to lay a firm surface but would they be required to install a gate instead of a style?
As a style could be considered as an obstruction of the footpath.
A landowner may not need to lay a firm surface but would they be required to install a gate instead of a style?
As a style could be considered as an obstruction of the footpath.
Yma o Hyd