"Open up countryside paths for people on bikes"

[NorthernDave]

"Due to archaic public access and rights of way laws, it is currently illegal for people on bikes to access the majority of the countryside in England and Wales.

At present, if you choose to ride a bike you only have access to less than a third of the 140,000 miles of public paths. There is also little access to the three million acres of Open Access Land or the 2,800 miles of newly created coastal access. Meanwhile, if you are on foot you have free and open access to all of this land.

Read more at https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/c...ikes-say-outdoor-groups-0#SZHbFUqbFfjYkhqf.99 "

Did anyone see the feature on BBC Breakfast about this campaign?

To be fair, I think it makes great sense - for example, near me there is a great green lane that gets me out of a built up area and straight into the countryside with a choice of a couple of good bridleway routes to ride on, but the first quarter mile or so is actually designated as public footpath so it's illegal to ride on. So the only option is to either break the law or cycle around two miles on busy roads to get to the start point.
This could be a great local asset if it were opened up sensibly.

 

[Spinney]

I voted no, because there wasn't an option for 'some of them'.
I'd hate to see all countryside paths opened up for bikes - some really aren't suitable, too narrow or twisty, or the bikes would cause too much erosion. And I'm not too keen on the prospect of an MTB whizzing round a blind corner at me on some paths.

 

[classic33]

Voted No because I live not far from many paths that are open, and the difference in speed, between walkers and those on bikes can be huge. Often they'll be headed back to their cars to load the bikes ready to go home/onto the next spot.

Who'd maintain the stiles if the paths were opened?

 

[NorthernDave]

I voted no, because there wasn't an option for 'some of them'.
I'd hate to see all countryside paths opened up for bikes - some really aren't suitable, too narrow or twisty, or the bikes would cause too much erosion. And I'm not too keen on the prospect of an MTB whizzing round a blind corner at me on some paths.

Voted No because I live not far from many paths that are open, and the difference in speed, between walkers and those on bikes can be huge. Often they'll be headed back to their cars to load the bikes ready to go home/onto the next spot.

Who'd maintain the stiles if the paths were opened?

Fair points - I've added a "some paths" option as clearly there are some paths that wouldn't be suitable.

 

[classic33]

Fair points - I've added a "some paths" option as clearly there are some paths that wouldn't be suitable.

Worst round here being the Calderdale Way and the Pennine Way for bikes. Walkers are the poor cousins

 

[Booyaa]

"Due to archaic public access and rights of way laws, it is currently illegal for people on bikes to access the majority of the countryside in England and Wales.

At present, if you choose to ride a bike you only have access to less than a third of the 140,000 miles of public paths. There is also little access to the three million acres of Open Access Land or the 2,800 miles of newly created coastal access. Meanwhile, if you are on foot you have free and open access to all of this land.

Read more at https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/c...ikes-say-outdoor-groups-0#SZHbFUqbFfjYkhqf.99 "

Did anyone see the feature on BBC Breakfast about this campaign?

To be fair, I think it makes great sense - for example, near me there is a great green lane that gets me out of a built up area and straight into the countryside with a choice of a couple of good bridleway routes to ride on, but the first quarter mile or so is actually designated as public footpath so it's illegal to ride on. So the only option is to either break the law or cycle around two miles on busy roads to get to the start point.
This could be a great local asset if it were opened up sensibly.

And thousands of miles of roads too...

 

[Drago]

Round here at least it would be the most unpleasurable exercise, what with regular stiles, gates etc.

 

[welsh dragon]

I also voted no as well. I have a public footpath that runs through my land and although I have absolutely no problem with anyone walking on it as long as they shut the gates and keep their dogs on leads, in rainy weather if bikes were allowed, my land would be churned into a muddy mess. Not all public footpaths are suitable for bikes. Some terrain would be impassable by bikes. On suitable paths certainly but common sense must be exercised.

 

[growingvegetables]

I voted "No".

Partly I LIKE that there are paths that really are for walking only.

But primarily - as far as I am aware, it is not actually illegal to cycle on footpaths. Except where ...

• local councils have enacted byelaws to forbid cycling on particular footpaths (usually in towns/built-up areas);
• National Park Authorities have enacted similar byelaws (for very good reason, imho) - eg on the Pennine Way.

A landowner across whose land a footpath passes MAY forbid cycling on the footpath on his/her private land - but that's not a matter of cycling on footpaths being illegal; any conflict between a landowner and cyclist would be a civil matter.

Nor do cyclists have "permission" to ride them (as we do bridleways).

It's a huge grey area - and honestly, that's the way I like it. I ride lots of footpaths - and have VERY rarely had a real problem. I like that they are tougher and wilder, and you have to manhandle a bike (or worse, a tandem!) over stiles and farm gates. I like that I have to use my basic "country sense" - not riding footpaths in fields of livestock, or watching NOT to damage crops or (especially) the soil.

I like defusing the occasional confrontational dog-walker - it really confuses the very few red-faced apoplectics when you make a point of stopping and fussing over their damned dog, praising its looks, behaviour, and pedigree; that really spoils their afternoon! ().

And I like occasionally meeting a stroppy, bolshy farmer - and defusing his aggression. Not difficult - an apology, a bit of conversation about his land and his cattle; and you walk on round the next bend. You know you'll climb back on the bike. He knows you'll climb back on the bike. But there's been enough give and take for him to trust my "country sense".

No change. No way. Please. And certainly NOT driven by numpties who can't be arsed to check out what the law actually IS, before starting a silly campaign!

[edited to add] And not giving an opening to the sort of speed-crazed MTB-ers who can make canal-tow-path-riding so unpleasant.

Whatever is wrong with SLOW-cycling! It works for foodies - maybe we need the same for cycling

 

[albion]

In England there is more emphasis on soverignty whilst in Scotland there is recognition that access to land belongs to the people.

Even pedestrians are barred from large areas of land so what hope is there for cyclists.

 

[Tin Pot]

Is there a "you can cycle but not race" option?

We have some daft cycle prohibitions around my way, but at the same time we need to preclude off road racing posses.

 

[Tim Hall]

To be fair, I think it makes great sense - for example, near me there is a great green lane that gets me out of a built up area and straight into the countryside with a choice of a couple of good bridleway routes to ride on, but the first quarter mile or so is actually designated as public footpath so it's illegal to ride on. So the only option is to either break the law or cycle around two miles on busy roads to get to the start point.
This could be a great local asset if it were opened up sensibly.

You missed out another option - push your bike for a whole quarter of a mile until you reach the bridleway.

 

[raleighnut]

Good to see you've amended the voting options to 'some of them', not all footpaths are suitable.

 

[coffeejo]

As a regular walker, I voted no. I can see why some people want to cycle on more off road paths but I've done my fair share of leaping out of the way of mountain bikes coming down hill in areas where you expect to see them. If I'm on a shared path, I keep the dog close to me and don't stop in the middle of the path to take a photograph. In contrast, I'm free to do so on footpaths in complete safety as I know the only traffic will be fellow walkers. It's different if the suggestion is for people to cycle at walking speed but that's not the proposal.

There are other reasons but wanting to protect pedestrian-only areas is top of my list. Having said that, I'd be fully supportive of any campaign to open up more of the countryside to more walkers, cyclists and riders.

 

[Oldfentiger]

I voted no.
If this were allowed there would be a bloody war.
The missus and I gave up green lane motorcycling because we'd had enough of constant aggravation. We were responsible, members of the TRF, with legal properly silenced bikes. We adhered to the TRF recommended 15mph limit, and less where necessary. Trouble was we were tarred with the same brush as the minority of moto X jockeys who spoil it for everyone.