Public Footpaths - cycling?

[mumbojumbo]

Where Public Footpaths are just narrow paths, rather than wide tracks that could take a quad bike or a Landrover, I'd view someone riding a bike much the same as someone littering or letting their dog mess the path. Inconsiderate folk who break the rules because they know they will not be prosecuted, regardless of the fact that their actions create problems for others. On a narrow path there isn't enough room for walker and cyclist to pass, so what happens? 90% of the time the person on a bike continues riding while the walker stands to one side.
/quote]

In many instances the cyclist and walkers do not coincide.If walkers step aside (90pc on your estimates) they are effectively condoning the cyclists conduct.Stand firm and challenge,rather than make your point online,which does little>

[pwa]

Where Public Footpaths are just narrow paths, rather than wide tracks that could take a quad bike or a Landrover, I'd view someone riding a bike much the same as someone littering or letting their dog mess the path. Inconsiderate folk who break the rules because they know they will not be prosecuted, regardless of the fact that their actions create problems for others. On a narrow path there isn't enough room for walker and cyclist to pass, so what happens? 90% of the time the person on a bike continues riding while the walker stands to one side.
/quote]

In many instances the cyclist and walkers do not coincide.If walkers step aside (90pc on your estimates) they are effectively condoning the cyclists conduct.Stand firm and challenge,rather than make your point online,which does little>

I do stand firm and challenge, but from my own observations most don't. And it isn't because they are happy to meet an MTB on a narrow path, it is because the oncoming 65cm wide handlebars, waving from side to side as they approach, invite other path users to get out of the way.

[thirdcrank]

Isn't this where we came in?

viewtopic.php?p=1509714#p1509714

[rareposter]

The narrow trail argument (whether it's FP or BW) is a straw man.
A highway is not a thing; it is a right. Footpaths, bridleways and byways are all highways and can all exist without any discernible trace being visible on the ground. And neither footpaths nor bridleways are defined by width.

I said earlier about FPs that are wide gravel tracks and BWs that are narrow trails so the idea that you'd stand your ground on FP and yield/share on BW is ridiculous. Also, as previously mentioned, you have less right to challenge the usage than the cyclist has to ride it. If you're not the landowner, it's none of your business. Designation of a path as FP or BW does not mean higher access rights do not exist on it.

And the comment about FPs being created by poor people. Where's the facepalm emoji? The highways (including roads) that we have in the UK are a result of evolving use over millennia. Some, like Pilgrim's Way in Kent, have existed in one form or another since the Stone Age. Hundreds of miles of road are built on top of previous Roman roads. All of them started as "footpaths". New paths form (or are built) as the land usage changes and evolves. Go to a forestry plantation and nothing on the map will match what is actually on the ground because of the continual felling/planting phases.

[Navara]

I do stand firm and challenge, but from my own observations most don't. And it isn't because they are happy to meet an MTB on a narrow path, it is because the oncoming 65cm wide handlebars, waving from side to side as they approach, invite other path users to get out of the way.

65cm?
They were considered narrow years ago I had 780mm bars on both MTBs in 2015 The way they're going they'll be fitting "cowhorns" like we had in the 70s next

Anyway I digress......

[Bmblbzzz]

And the comment about FPs being created by poor people. Where's the facepalm emoji? The highways (including roads) that we have in the UK are a result of evolving use over millennia. Some, like Pilgrim's Way in Kent, have existed in one form or another since the Stone Age. Hundreds of miles of road are built on top of previous Roman roads. All of them started as "footpaths". New paths form (or are built) as the land usage changes and evolves. Go to a forestry plantation and nothing on the map will match what is actually on the ground because of the continual felling/planting phases.

And the Romans, obviously, also rode horses, as did the ancient Britons before them and the Saxons and others later. All of those ancient Roman roads and prehistoric paths will have been used for horses as well as on foot. The same applies to many paths of later origin. None of which bears on their status as footpaths, bridleways or whatever today, which is of far more recent creation.

[merseymouth]

Hi, Just a thought Rareposter, are there any laws which you feel obliged to respect?
I say this as a vulnerable pedestrian who is sick to the back teeth over the behaviour of people who cycle on pavements!
As someone who has survived major surgery, which means if I fall or get knocked over will probably bring about grievous internal trauma, makes me more than a little wary. Add to that serious hearing impairment which means I haven't a hope in hell of being aware of approaches from behind by cyclists. Throw in the instability caused by my brain tumour, my forward movement may at any moment involve a portion of lateral movement then I need the sanctuary of the pavement! Yep! I'm a wreck!
So pavement riders, respect my right to free access, you have no right to steal my freedom! MM

[rareposter]

Hi, Just a thought Rareposter, are there any laws which you feel obliged to respect?
I say this as a vulnerable pedestrian who is sick to the back teeth over the behaviour of people who cycle on pavements!
As someone who has survived major surgery, which means if I fall or get knocked over will probably bring about grievous internal trauma, makes me more than a little wary. Add to that serious hearing impairment which means I haven't a hope in hell of being aware of approaches from behind by cyclists. Throw in the instability caused by my brain tumour, my forward movement may at any moment involve a portion of lateral movement then I need the sanctuary of the pavement! Yep! I'm a wreck!
So pavement riders, respect my right to free access, you have no right to steal my freedom! MM

Are we talking about pavements (as in the bit alongside a highway reserved for pedestrians and separated by a kerb or verge from the flow of motor vehicles) or footpaths (the trails across fields / through woods etc referred to by MickF in his original post)?

The former are specifically for pedestrians. Except where some well-meaning council has painted a shared-use cycle path along it of course... And the bits where you can drive a car across it to access a driveway or premises.

The latter are just trails and (as discussed on here over the previous 9 pages), the designation of them as FP, BW, BOAT etc often bears little relation to the terrain or trail or location, or indeed any higher rights that might exist based on the landowner or historic usage.

And by the way, I wasn't saying "I ride wherever, **** the lot of you". I was pointing out the discrepancies and the legal aspects of it.

[merseymouth]

Hi Rareposter, I accept your points. But sadly wherever I walk I have moronic folk on bikes endangering me!
The pavement alongside a highway is now taken by morons on bikes as being their refuge from the motor-vehicle, so it is often a case of sod you Jack.
Even when cycle provision of a sensible nature is created by the authorities we find people ignoring the detail in such provisions?
Near me there is certain provision made, albeit in one direction only, but riders who use the facilities correctly have to run the gauntlet with riders who go against the flow!
Sure one can blame the council for not making to way provision, but hey I know of proper cycle provision lanes where the muppets ride the wrong way??? I of course have great difficulty in using such lanes as my tricycle needs more space than the idiots allow me to use!
So even when things are done properly by the authorities the idiots ill screw things up in a selfish fashion.
This country does have some confusing provisions, footpaths, bridle paths, RUPP's, but for every single person who tries to follow the correct procedure you will meet far more folk who don't give a toss! I like to keep to the rules so that it is safe for others, o that others would do the same?
TTFN MM

[Mick F]

Public footpaths are a legacy of an era when poor people walked everywhere,and are perhaps an anachronism.I note an earlier poster mentioned walking with a dog,and objected to law-breakers.I would imagine the dog may have been off the lead,and possibly allowed to foul either the path or the immediate area.I think this is permissible under the law,but in a modern society it is socially unacceptable.By contrast,cycling is unlawful on such paths,but IF cyclists defer to walkers it is acceptable and can only offend those who adhere to the law a la Cpt Mainwaring.ie Rules is rules and orders is orders.The authorities cannot be bothered to enforce these trivial mores,and rightly focus on real crimes.

Me and doggie walk on footpaths, and I'm the original poster.

I've also suggested that public footpaths should be the same as bridle ways.

As they are not, a footpath is a path for feet ONLY, and a bridle way is for horses ......... but allowable for bicycles etc.
Make 'em the same in law and we'll all be happy eh?

Doggie does't poo out on the lanes or the paths, and he is always on the lead.
All our dogs over the 40odd years we've had Border Collies have been trained ....... and naturally do it anyway ............ to poo at home.

[mumbojumbo]

You cannot convert foot-to bridle paths.The former are punctuated by stiles,gates,and many pass private gardens.They are too narrow for horses.I was not trying to criticise you or your dog but,you will agree,many dog-owners neither receive nor give adequate training.

[rareposter]

You cannot convert foot-to bridle paths.The former are punctuated by stiles,gates,and many pass private gardens.They are too narrow for horses.I was not trying to criticise you or your dog but,you will agree,many dog-owners neither receive nor give adequate training.

Not true - firstly not all FPs have stiles and secondly it's easy for a landowner to rip them out and replace with gates, especially if vehicle access is required (for example farming) or if they wish to offer higher permissive rights (eg a FP that is voluntarily opened up as a Permissive BW). And width of a trail has no bearing on its classification. The only time width comes into it is if there is a RoW across a field with crops in it in which case the farmer must maintain a 1m path if it's FP and a 2m one if it's BW. If the RoW is round the edge of a field, a 3m gap must be left between the edge of the ploughing / crops and the boundary hedge/wall.

For "natural" trails, width doesn't mean anything. You can have a BW that's one horse width, a FP that's one car width. The terrain and width of a RoW generally has no bearing on what it was originally classified as. Which is why you end up with situations such as FPs that you could drive a family car down or BWs that no horse would ever make it across.

[RickH]

The designation of a right of way is so inconsistent.

Round here this

Footpath

Is a footpath - tarmac surface wide enough for 2 cars to pass. Frequently used by cyclists (I've been using it since I was taken that way on a ride in 1981/82) & horses.

In contrast, this

Bridleway

(with over 100 steep steps) is a bridleway. I've yet to see a horse or a cycle (or evidence of use by either) on this route.

[Navara]

In contrast, this
DSC_3300.JPG
(with over 100 steep steps) is a bridleway. I've yet to see a horse or a cycle (or evidence of use by either) on this route.

That looks like Rivington Pike?
We've ridden down those on the MTBs

[thirdcrank]

The designation of a right of way is so inconsistent.

Round here this
DSC_3334.JPG
Is a footpath - tarmac surface wide enough for 2 cars to pass. .....

Presumably, that route is used by the occupier of the land and their visitors in motor vehicles. If it's designated as a public footpath, the general public has a right-of-way on foot only.