Does helmet abuse vary where you live in the UK?

[Nearholmer]

Right, so, if I understand this correctly you want to tightly define the surface condition of bridleways?

Goodbye the bridleways we love then. The joy of encountering a hundred different surfaces, some pretty challenging, in a ride will be gone. The joy of seasonal variation will disappear. The fun of testing bike-handling skills against the environment will become a thing known only from the stories of grey-bearded ancients. And, perhaps most important: equestrians will be very, very angry.

But, since it simply won’t happen, I don’t really think there’s much to worry about.

To me, the apparent vagueness of the law is in fact very wise, because by talking about “expected traffic” it allows for the huge variation/variety that applies, and makes it clear that the HA must give some thought to the topic, and by talking of “reasonable convenience”, it calls-up the standard legal tests of reasonableness, which means that is calls-up genuine common sense.

PS: some rural bridleways run along the beds of streams. There is one near where I live that goes for a few hundred metres that way. It’s not a “flooding” thing; the ancient right of way is along the stream, which has a reasonably firm bed, and being just below the spring-line is never more than about a foot deep. It reflects the fact that these ways were first established by horse-riders, because horses are immune to getting water in the bottom bracket bearing.

[Cugel]

Some do go the whole data-hog and end up pedalling furiously on a static thing whilst gazing at a screen showing a 2D cartoon of reality. Safe, steady, no bumpy-bumpy and no need to learn how to cycle, just to push on a pedal or two.

When the cycling infrastructure fans get going, they often show pics of perfekly-surfaced pathways free of obstacles and even other people. The sort of utopia that makes one glad to be still in the awkward, demanding but ever-so-interesting difficulties of actuality.

[mattheus]

When the cycling infrastructure fans get going, they often show pics of perfekly-surfaced pathways free of obstacles and even other people. The sort of utopia that makes one glad to be still in the awkward, demanding but ever-so-interesting difficulties of actuality.

Sounds like Wales suits you

[853]

In many cases the rider will be able to identify the location and have recollection of events.

You are either unwilling, or unable, to understand the facts here. Being able to identify the location is not good enough; it needs to be measured exactly. As does the angle of the approach, the speed and the centre of mass of the rider. On top of this would be required the wind speed and direction, the light level (and direction) at the time, the wetness/dryness of the surface and the position and size of any loose gravel. And then there is the exact tyre pressures at the time.

As pjclinch has alluded to earlier in this thread, even if you had all of the measurements required it would also depend on the skill/experience of the rider; what might result in a fall for one rider could be an enjoyable challenge for another.

[Steady rider]

(1)Subject to Part I of Schedule 7 to this Act, the council of a [F5non-metropolitan] district may undertake the maintenance of any eligible highway in the district which is a highway maintainable at the public expense.

(2)For the purposes of subsection (1) above the following are eligible highways:—

(a)footpaths,

(b)bridleways,

A bridleway is a highway according to the Act and maintainable at the public expense. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/19 ... ic-expense
It is more than a right of passage. If classified as a bridleway, cyclists may use it at any time, a long distance tourist form X or Y, may use it in the dark and may never than uncounted it before. It needs to be of a standard suitable for cycling. The 'standard' needs defining, so it can be referred in the ACT.

Clarification of the situation and standards, to help ensure all roads and bridleways used by cyclists are relatively safe, and have to be maintained to a good standard.

[rareposter]

If classified as a bridleway, cyclists may use it at any time, a long distance tourist form X or Y, may use it in the dark and may never than uncounted it before. It needs to be of a standard suitable for cycling. The 'standard' needs defining, so it can be referred in the ACT.

The thread is going way off topic from helmets now but no, you're wrong.

The 1968 Countryside Act section 30 did not create any obligation for a highway authority “to do anything to facilitate the use of the bridleway by cyclists”.

Bridleways are still ‘highways maintainable at public expense’ under section 36 of the Highway Act 1980 but that doesn't mean that an authority has to go around smoothing and surfacing everything.

Likewise, a footpath does not have to be suitable for anyone in flipflops to wander around on it.

Bluntly, your proposals are off-the-charts levels of unworkable, unwanted and irrelevant.

[Nearholmer]

You need to read the guide to local authorities about their responsibilities in this respect. It talks about what they have to maintain, what the landowner/occupier has to maintain, and it fleshes-out in more practical terms the implications of the “expected traffic” and “reasonable convenience” requirements of the law.

You are honestly barking up the wrong tree in thinking about this in terms of tightly defined surface standards, and by failing to understand what the law is actually saying.

Do you ride much on bridleways? If not, I advocate spending a few days with an OS map exploring some, preferably ones that span a wide variety of conditions, and a wide variety of “expected traffic”, just to get your head around all this.

As further instance, I live in a place where we have absolutely oodles of them, but of very different kinds, all interlinking. Our local, pretty decent quality, shared path network is, so far as I can understand, treated as permissive bridleway for legislative purposes, and that has three grades of surfaced path, all maintained at public expense: Super Redways; Redways; and, Leisure Paths. They are built and maintained to different standards, reflecting “the expected traffic” which can then pass along them with “reasonable convenience”. We also have traditional, and in many cases historical right of way, unsurfaced or soft surfaced bridleways. Again, the way they are treated reflects “expected traffic”, so varying amounts of horses and off-road bikes. The point is that the HA assesses the expected traffic (thousands of bikes and pedestrians a week, right down to one horse a fortnight), and acts accordingly, so the surfaces vary from immaculate tarmac to the dirt that nature provided.

That’s how bridleways work (and footpaths, and byways, and minor roads), and for a very high percentage of rural bridleways the “expected traffic” is a handful of equestrians and a few bikes each week, so the surface is what nature and agriculture furnish. Sometimes, I go rambling about on rural ones and see not another single soul using one all day, or ser so few that each encounter involves stopping to pass the time of day. Some, however, do get quite heavy use, especially near riding schools, or where they form useful links that local people use a lot, and sometimes the surfaces get utterly wrecked, and thats the stage when users contact the HA, have a good old moan, and pester them into surface restoration. There are even consultative panels run by each HA, typically with strong representation from “the horsey set”, which attempt to pre-emptcdurface problems, resolve conflicts with landowners, and (famous and thankfully I think unique case in Surrey) conflicts between pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians.

What wouldn’t help
In any of this would be surface-roughness meters, or accelerometers.

[Nearholmer]

PS: rural bridleways are to cycling what rural public footpaths are to walking. You know, the paths where people wear wellies, or hiking boots. You seem be thinking of a parallel to urban roadside pavements.

If your imagined foreign tourer embarks on rural bridleways in the dark, unless they have very, very good lights, and top-notch navigational skills, the most likely outcomes are that they will retreat after half a mile, or get utterly and completely lost, and likely injured too, even on a benign lowland one - in hill country they could go off a sheer drop and perish.

[Steady rider]

853 wrote

You are either unwilling, or unable, to understand the facts here. Being able to identify the location is not good enough; it needs to be measured exactly. As does the angle of the approach, the speed and the centre of mass of the rider. On top of this would be required the wind speed and direction, the light level (and direction) at the time, the wetness/dryness of the surface and the position and size of any loose gravel. And then there is the exact tyre pressures at the time.

As pjclinch has alluded to earlier in this thread, even if you had all of the measurements required it would also depend on the skill/experience of the rider; what might result in a fall for one rider could be an enjoyable challenge for another

Of course riders and equipment vary and in nearly all accidents due to falls, the information on many factors may not be available.
Introducing specific standards to try and ensure the roads or bridleways are reasonably safe would be the objective. The sort of requirements could be listed, current standards already cover some aspects. The g forces would need a standards for the cycle/equipment/speed etc.
1) road/bridleway inspections every 4 months
2) road surfaces to meet requirements matching the category, class A, B, C or other/ private roads, 2g maximum forces
3) bridleway surfaces for cycling to meet requirements matching the category of bridleway, grade 1 to 3, depending on location and expected use. 3 g maximum forces
4) cyclepaths meeting requirements matching the category, class A, B, C, D. 2g maximum forces

it would be trying to improve on the existing standards
https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... gn-ltn-120

Some situations are unsuitable to include but in general most roads/cyclepaths/bridleways could be included.
I am looking for improvements from the existing situation.

[rareposter]

1) road/bridleway inspections every 4 months

There's 120,000 miles of bridleway in the UK, what are your costings for investigating every mile of it 3x a year?!

Against a backdrop of cash-strapped councils plus the general irrelevance of your entire idea, I'm not certain it's a vote winner really...

[Steady rider]

Fair point,
https://bridleways.uk/statistics says 26,006 miles,
If inspections required by the local council, e.g parish, town, or other,

There are 10,480 parish/town councils in England,
on average about 2.5 miles to inspect at 10 mph, 4 times a year, 1 hour.
If the bridleway was not to a suitable standard or raised concerns, it could be listed for closer inspection.

https://uk.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search; ... n2027_c999

[Steady rider]

The discussion has gone off helmets onto general road/paths etc and their standards or how to improve their standards.

It is quite important to note many people cycle occasionally, and are not high skilled cyclists, they avoid rough surfaces and anything that makes them feel unsafe. To achieve high standards, e.g Netherlands, the UK needs serious improvements to roads and cycling facilities. UK minor roads are now worse than they were 50 years ago. Insufficient monitoring of road standards (minor roads) and lack of precise requirements is unhelpful.
ps I have cycled for more than 60 years, covering more than 300,000 miles, and cycled in many countries.

[Nearholmer]

It went off down a slightly muddy, rather bumpy, and somewhat overgrown, bridleway because that is where you took it.

What you say is all true, but dragging bridleways into it really is taking a very bad wrong turning.

Here is a bridleway, in fact it’s part of the South Downs Way I think. Now, it’s utterly unsuitable for anything but the determined and experienced cyclist, or horse and rider (it’s ruddy steep as well as rough), but people love it dearly, and if you started tarmaccing it over and measuring roughness, I wouldn’t want to be the guarantor of your physical safety.

[pjclinch]

As it happens I've just been riding in NL and the high standards of infrastructure are, as far as I can tell, nothing to do with specially equipped measurement bikes but with high and well defined standards backed up with political will.

A look at e.g. LTN 1/20 or the most recent revision of Cycling by Design tells you that we have the high and well defined standards available but are generally lacking the political will to implement them.

Political will is nothing to do with technical measurement of road smoothness.

Pete.

[mjr]

Here is a bridleway, in fact it’s part of the South Downs Way I think. Now, it’s utterly unsuitable for anything but the determined and experienced cyclist, or horse and rider (it’s ruddy steep as well as rough), but people love it dearly, and if you started tarmaccing it over and measuring roughness, I wouldn’t want to be the guarantor of your physical safety.

And that's part of why we don't have nice routes. The Great British Fools would rather have more cars killing people than widen a potentially-useful bridleway and put an all-weather (not necessarily tarmac, but something that can be ridden or walked without getting filthy) surface alongside the grass for horses and masochists, as happens in Benelux. Ramblers and riders don't care about public health, just as long as they don't have to share much.