Local Ramblers groups opposing calls for more countryside access for cyclists

barbarus wrote:

Can one legally carry a horse on a Surrey footpath?

Only if it's folded.

WolfieSmith wrote:

The solution? I bought bells for all my bikes (even a subtle Knogg Oi bell so as not to sully the summer bike)  and obeying the highway code has never been more enjoyable. No more "get a bell!" and I so love the furious glares from the few who hate cycling in all it forms but know they can't argue with the 'ting' of the bike bell... Especially when I have to use it repeatedly. Ting! Ting! Ting! TING! Try it: obeying the letter of the law can be practical and so much fun.

In Japan it is acceptable (although no longer entirely lawful) to ride a bike on the pavement/paths. As a walker it scares the sh!t out of you the first couple of weeks you live there as you think you are going to get hit by the highly unskilled masses cycling along on their "sit up and beg" bikes (better known there as "Mama Chari's). I've even had policemen there advise me, when riding on the road, to consider riding on the pavement as it is "safer". Everyone has adapted though: people ride at the appropriate speed on the pavement (apart form the odd idiot); walkers don't get scared or angry; and accidents rarely happen (if they do the larger "item" is always to blaim and can be sued for large amounts of money, which again calms down the speed of cyclists on paths)

My point wasn't actually going to be the above, although in writing it, I realise its probably the more important point. What I was actually going to say, was, that as a result of being able to cycle on pavements and it being a legal requirement there to have a sounding device on the bike to alert people of your approach, we often got to the better cycling routes along safe pathways happily ringing our bells ....or better still cycling hooters!

nowasps wrote:

First things first: Take away all the car parks in the countryside, and just have bus stops instead. Sort the walkers from the motorists doggers.   

ftfy

beezus fufoon wrote:

nowasps wrote:

First things first: Take away all the car parks in the countryside, and just have bus stops instead. Sort the walkers from the motorists doggers.   

ftfy

Hmm. Hadn't fully considered the sexual freedoms angle.

DaveE128 wrote:

I fully support the Cycling UK campaign. I think Scotland's model and think we shiuld adopt it, possibly with exceptions for the very busiest areas to reduce conflicts.

An excellent example of a busy area ​exception is the voluntary ban on Snowdon. That works almost perfectly, it was agreed between user group representatives​ and cyclists stay off the mountain until after 5pm to ensure that walkers going up are not met by hoards of MTBers screaming down. And it's still a voluntary ban, not actually legally enforceable yet it works. (albeit, Snowdon is fairly extreme terrain and therefore self-selects the riders that would attempt to ride it anyway!)

KiwiMike wrote:

Nuanced debate.

1. Horses cause a huge mess, for everyone. They cause the same damage to trail surfaces as motocross bikes. Therefore there is no comparison - horses are not cycles. They are also a tiny minority of overall recreational users, and serve no useful purpose such as transport or improving health. They are a carbon-intensive folly. I say this as a father of two horse-mad girls who has sunk a shitload of cash into the beasts over the years.

2. Cycles, OTOH, cause as much damage as pedestians. Often less, as they are less concerned about keeping feet dry so don't widen paths to skirt around puddles, causing more erosion and damage to vegetation.

3. Funnily enough no-one keeps statistics on offroad cyclist-pedestrian collisions because they are so rare as to not register above the noise floor of statistical sensibility. Anyone citing risk of collision as reason to ban cycling can be safely ignored once this point is clarified. 

4. People cycling in the countryside are highly likely to be decent people there for exactly the same reasons as the walkers - enjoying the outdoors away from cars.

5. People cycling have as much to loose from a collision as the pedestrian does, if not more. There is an inherent bias not to be a tit.

6. The Ramblers et al are simply selfish in not wanting to see bikes on tracks where cars and farm vehicles are often present.

7. Public policy should not be made based on what might happen, rather on evidence-based fact of what has happened, and can meaniningfully be ameliorated through change of policy.

8. I'm all for just riding everywhere, being nice, and smiling, apologising and moving on if someone gets upset. In the last thirteen years of riding local footpaths around my village, I can't recall a single cross word with anyone. Mostly because in an hour's riding I hardly ever meet anyone.

These are vastly, massively underutilised resources for recreation, and the Ramblers STILL want them all to themselves, whilst the cyclist taxpayer funds them but can't use them.

Meanwhile we have a child and adult obesity epidemic. 

All of this, I rarely ride off road these days but the attitude of some walkers is way in excess of the alleged dangers presented.

Absolutely you will come across some people that ride bikes that are annoying/careless and in some cases even a bit dangerous, however the OTT reaction by a fairly significant proportion of walkers/ramblers to people just sidling by quietly with no fuss or presenting any danger is riduclously excessive. Usually starts with tuts and mild expletives under the breath, then that will go further with more vocal swearing despite all the while you not even coming within an armspan at a few mph.  Then it extends further when they deliberately try to block you by walking off the path even when you're attempting to go well wide to avoid disturbing them, then further where people have being grabbed and assaulted.

Absolutely those that come bombing round a bend and cut far too close deserve a stiff arm tackle but for the most part the reaction is massively OTT.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

All of this, I rarely ride off road these days but the attitude of some walkers is way in excess of the alleged dangers presented.

The likelihood is that they are timid, wee, cowering car drivers, fearful that they shall now be treated the way they treat other road users.

Valbrona wrote:

Bikes belong on roads.

And mountain biking is so immature.

No, you are. So nerrr.

Valbrona wrote:

Bikes belong on roads.

And mountain biking is so immature.

Time to go back to the golf course.

Yorkshire wallet wrote:

I don't see what's wrong with dismounting if necessary and then being on your way again. I've been on footpaths and come cross 2 people in the same number of miles. It's not like riding on the pavement in a busy town. 

Ah but Surrey byelaws forbid you to walk with, or even carry, a cycle on a footpath:

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

Personally I think that's a bit too draconian, and needs to be challenged.

Regarding mikethebike's "horse riders from teaching a completely stress-free animal"  - just to reinforce what others have posted, can mike clarify under what circumstances cycles and horse riders are not allowed to share a path?

mike the bike wrote:

 

Sorry folks but I'm entirely with the ramblers on this one and I say that as an active cyclist of more than fifty years experience.  There is no quicker way to spoil the enjoyment of a quiet walk than to introduce bikes, their silent approach is enough to prevent walkers from relaxing, dog walkers from releasing their pets and horse riders from teaching a completely stress-free animal.

In the same way that we cyclists often resent having to share space with the car, so are other path users reluctant to be pushed aside by bicycles in a hurry.  There is nothing wrong with wanting to unwind, to think at walking speed and to be free of the worry of other, faster traffic.

Is thirty thousand kilometres of bridleway and cyclepath not enough?  Or are we behaving exactly like motorists, who want it all?

I was going to say something similar. Country paths are for leisure and fresh air/pretty views, and you can get those just as easily on foot, so I don't really care if bikes are not allowed - I'll just walk those routes.

Would rather stick to battling the legions of the motor-lobby - I see no gain in opening a second-front with the wooly-hat and rucksack brigade.

But... the point in the article about some such routes allowing motor vehicles but not bikes suggests there might be a valid argument for changing the rules slightly in some cases.

mike the bike wrote:

 

Sorry folks but I'm entirely with the ramblers on this one and I say that as an active cyclist of more than fifty years experience.  There is no quicker way to spoil the enjoyment of a quiet walk than to introduce bikes, their silent approach is enough to prevent walkers from relaxing, dog walkers from releasing their pets and horse riders from teaching a completely stress-free animal.

In the same way that we cyclists often resent having to share space with the car, so are other path users reluctant to be pushed aside by bicycles in a hurry.  There is nothing wrong with wanting to unwind, to think at walking speed and to be free of the worry of other, faster traffic.

Is thirty thousand kilometres of bridleway and cyclepath not enough?  Or are we behaving exactly like motorists, who want it all?

Horses on a footpath?

mike the bike wrote:

 

Sorry folks but I'm entirely with the ramblers on this one and I say that as an active cyclist of more than fifty years experience.  There is no quicker way to spoil the enjoyment of a quiet walk than to introduce bikes, their silent approach is enough to prevent walkers from relaxing, dog walkers from releasing their pets and horse riders from teaching a completely stress-free animal.

In the same way that we cyclists often resent having to share space with the car, so are other path users reluctant to be pushed aside by bicycles in a hurry.  There is nothing wrong with wanting to unwind, to think at walking speed and to be free of the worry of other, faster traffic.

Is thirty thousand kilometres of bridleway and cyclepath not enough?  Or are we behaving exactly like motorists, who want it all?

I don't understand this. Why shouldn't I be able to (try, in some cases) ride my bike where I like? What's the difference between me and my bike, and say a dog Walker and the animal, or a horse rider? If the horse or dog aren't controllable, they shouldn't be around the public.
It's just countryside, why is a walker, or someone with an animal, more able to use it responsibily than me?

Daveyraveygravey wrote:

mike the bike wrote:

 

Sorry folks but I'm entirely with the ramblers on this one and I say that as an active cyclist of more than fifty years experience.  There is no quicker way to spoil the enjoyment of a quiet walk than to introduce bikes, their silent approach is enough to prevent walkers from relaxing, dog walkers from releasing their pets and horse riders from teaching a completely stress-free animal.

In the same way that we cyclists often resent having to share space with the car, so are other path users reluctant to be pushed aside by bicycles in a hurry.  There is nothing wrong with wanting to unwind, to think at walking speed and to be free of the worry of other, faster traffic.

Is thirty thousand kilometres of bridleway and cyclepath not enough?  Or are we behaving exactly like motorists, who want it all?

I don't understand this. Why shouldn't I be able to (try, in some cases) ride my bike where I like? What's the difference between me and my bike, and say a dog Walker and the animal, or a horse rider? If the horse or dog aren't controllable, they shouldn't be around the public. It's just countryside, why is a walker, or someone with an animal, more able to use it responsibily than me?

Normally because the person walking isn't trying to do 15+ MPH down hill and round a blind bend.

It dosen't end well.

I know this. Been flattend once and had a couple of close calls in the last 12 months.

EDIT removed the reference to horses, they should be on the footpathh either....

mike the bike wrote:

 

Sorry folks but I'm entirely with the ramblers on this one and I say that as an active cyclist of more than fifty years experience.  There is no quicker way to spoil the enjoyment of a quiet walk than to introduce bikes, their silent approach is enough to prevent walkers from relaxing, dog walkers from releasing their pets and horse riders from teaching a completely stress-free animal.

In the same way that we cyclists often resent having to share space with the car, so are other path users reluctant to be pushed aside by bicycles in a hurry.  There is nothing wrong with wanting to unwind, to think at walking speed and to be free of the worry of other, faster traffic.

Is thirty thousand kilometres of bridleway and cyclepath not enough?  Or are we behaving exactly like motorists, who want it all?

There is no quicker way to spoil the enjoyment of a quiet walk than to introduce DOGS.

Horses are not allowed on footpaths.

mike the bike wrote:

 

Sorry folks but I'm entirely with the ramblers on this one and I say that as an active cyclist of more than fifty years experience.  There is no quicker way to spoil the enjoyment of a quiet walk than to introduce bikes, their silent approach is enough to prevent walkers from relaxing, dog walkers from releasing their pets and horse riders from teaching a completely stress-free animal.

In the same way that we cyclists often resent having to share space with the car, so are other path users reluctant to be pushed aside by bicycles in a hurry.  There is nothing wrong with wanting to unwind, to think at walking speed and to be free of the worry of other, faster traffic.

Is thirty thousand kilometres of bridleway and cyclepath not enough?  Or are we behaving exactly like motorists, who want it all?

I agree with you on this one.  There ought to be spaces free of the probability of an interaction with a much faster road user.  I am both walker and cyclist and do not appreciate sharing paths with cyclists. 

On the other hand, if either cyclists or walkers have wended their way to one of the last pockets of greenery and tranquility using a combustion engine then they can suck it as far as I'm concerned.