3 in 4 off-road cyclists think right of way law archaic

spen wrote:

Ah yes, the self selecting survey, always 100% accurate, the gold standard if you like.

 

As someone who last year had to spend £4k from a fasr too small budget to replace steps on a narrow wooded path, ripped out by people who thiunk they shold be able to use their mountain bikes there because "there's no where else to ride it", I have to say that in my expereince of road cyclists are not responsible enough to be allowed access to all off road paths.  This along with the number of people who travel in excess of 20mph on shared use paths, passing much closer to pedestrians than any car driver would, I've even had that while measuring up a repair on a path, makes CUK call for responsible access law when cyclists appear not to be able to act reponsibly look naive at best, disingenuous at worst.

 

Jitensa Oni - those aren't byelaws,  they're national laws defined by the Highways Act

Ah yes, the self selecting opinion on "my experience", always 100% accurate, the gold standard if you like - must be applied to "all" cyclists.

Oh, the irony.

step83 wrote:

Am I the only one concerned the chap in the photo seems to have his kneecap rotated out at a weird angle?

He might be intending to use it to get down real low on the corners, a bit like motorcycle knee sliders.

Redvee wrote:

Years ago I was riding, slowly, along a bridleway that was alongside a footpath, two pedestrians were walking towards me and as I got close one of them stepped into my path and grabbed my handlebars and said I shouldn't be riding on the footpath. I agreed with her and asked her if I could legally ride on the bridlepath alongside the footpath I couldn't ride on, she let go of my handlebars and carried on walking without saying another word.

She then probably went home and told the tale of how she stopped a cyclist riding on the footpath and directed them onto the bridleway.

mike the bike wrote:

... nor should I have to keep my dogs on a leash every step of their walk.

The balance of freedoms in this area is probably about right as things stand, and I speak as a passionate, 4000+ miles per annum cyclist.

As long as you are keeping it under effective control  I have no issue with your dog being off leash. Having it hanging off one of those extending leads or letting it off and being totally unable to recall it - like apparently everyone I ever meet when walking my dog (well behaved, requiring only a whistle to drop whatever has claimed his interest and return to my side)  - that should have dire legal consequences.

The Countryside Code for England wrote:

access rights that normally apply to open country and registered common land (known as ‘open access’ land) require dogs to be kept on a short lead between 1 March and 31 July, to help protect ground nesting birds, and all year round near farm animals

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-countryside-code/the-coun...

Scottish Outdoor Access code (paragraphs 3.53-3.55 are far more prescriptive in what your role and responsibilities are relating to dogs)

mike the bike wrote:

 

Just as I would hate to see motor vehicles on our local bridleways I don't want to share footpaths with cyclists.  Sometimes it's good to move at walking pace and yes, to think at walking pace too.  I don't feel I should have to look over my shoulder every twenty yards in case I get flattened by a bike, nor should I have to keep my dogs on a leash every step of their walk.

The balance of freedoms in this area is probably about right as things stand, and I speak as a passionate, 4000+ miles per annum cyclist.

The balance of freedoms? Perhaps where you live and walk your dog but perhaps not in many other parts of the country. It makes no sense that a bitumen covered road with local car access is called a footpath (and therefore banned for bikes and horses) - walk a dog off leash there and see what happens. As the article states, many footpaths are more suitable for cycling than so-called byways and it makes perfect sense to allow other modes of travel gain access to these, especially if it means a safer journey and/or more people getting outside and improving their health. Scotland doesn't appear to have been too troubled by their 21st Century thinking...

Yorkshire wallet wrote:

Alternatively just do what you please as there'll be no comeback. I've used footpaths to get across country before, the only problem being the occasional tutting from rambling sorts and lobbing the bike over turnstyles. 

Not forgetting the wires stretched across the trails. Although that generally seems to happen where riding is permitted...

Yorkshire wallet wrote:

Alternatively just do what you please as there'll be no comeback. I've used footpaths to get across country before, the only problem being the occasional tutting from rambling sorts and lobbing the bike over turnstyles. 

While this is how it largely pans out, just look at the paragraph "Public footpaths are waymarked using yellow arrows"  in

https://www.surreycc.gov.uk/environment-housing-and-planning/countryside...

and tell me some changes wouldn't be useful. Why persist with such byelaws?

Jharrison5 wrote:

Another good reason to live in Scotland (admittedly a place not without fault), where outdoor access laws are based on manners and sense.

I had 2-3 years working in Scotland and the MTB riding was 'epic'; nothing in England has ever come close.  I think a large part of that is down to the fact that all paths are open to cyclists.