"Open up countryside paths for people on bikes"

[Jody]

my concern is for the safety of the most vulnerable road user. In the cars vs bikes argument, it's the cyclist who is vulnerable. In this instance, it's the walker.

In that instance the onus is on the motorist to obey the law and be mindul of the vulnerable road users or pedestrians, just as it is for a MTBer to be careful.

You wouldn't ban all cars just because some users don't follow the rules. You wouldn't ban cyclists on roads because some don't follow the rules. Same goes with people who ride MTB's. You can't stereotype a whole group just due to the actions of a minority.

 

[coffeejo]

In that instance the onus is on the motorist to obey the law and be mindul of the vulnerable road users or pedestrians, just as it is for a MTBer to be careful.

You wouldn't ban all cars just because some users don't follow the rules. You wouldn't ban cyclists on roads because some don't follow the rules. Same goes with people who ride MTB's. You can't stereotype a whole group just due to the actions of a minority.

I'm not stereotyping.

 

[Jody]

Replace you with people. I didn't specifically mean you are sterotyping, just like I wasn't saying you were calling for a ban on cars.

 

[Crackle]

It doesn't have to be an uncomfortable compromise if all goups work together.

I largely agree with your post but not that bit. I think it is an uncomfortable compromise where paths are well used. Perhaps less so in quieter areas. I cringe inwardly when I see cyclists on shared use paths not slowing down or ringing their bell in a 'get out of the way' way, indeed I've confronted one about doing exactly that to me.

 

[Nigel-YZ1]

I voted for some, but not all.
There are people that take a freedom and push it too far. When a train of 20 bikers hammers by you at top speed scattering people in all directions on a three foot wide path you have to question whether it's a good idea.

 

[coffeejo]

Replace you with people. I didn't specifically mean you are sterotyping, just like I wasn't saying you were calling for a ban on cars.

FYI, the less hostile response would have been to say you're sorry if you implied that I was stereotyping as that wasn't what you meant.

 

[Jody]

FYI, the less hostile response would have been to say you're sorry if you implied that I was stereotyping as that wasn't what you meant.

Apologies if you thought I was being hostile

 

[Jody]

I largely agree with your post but not that bit. I think it is an uncomfortable compromise where paths are well used. Perhaps less so in quieter areas.

Which is why it can only be on an individual basis but with the overall emphesis to protect ramblers rights on safety more than those who want access.

I cringe inwardly when I see cyclists on shared use paths not slowing down or ringing their bell in a 'get out of the way' way, indeed I've confronted one about doing exactly that to me.

I cringe what ever I do sometimes. The dirty looks from people who feel you are trying to move them out your way, so as not to slow your progress. Those who feel spooked when you don't ring a bell (as you feel guilty of people moving out your way). It seems you can't win on this one. I bought a bell as thought it was the courteus thing to do, but now I am not so sure, as it seems to create as much anomosity as it solves.

 

[Crackle]

I cringe what ever I do sometimes. The dirty looks from people who feel you are trying to move them out your way, so as not to slow your progress. Those who feel spooked when you don't ring a bell (as you feel guilty of people moving out your way). It seems you can't win on this one. I bought a bell as thought it was the courteus thing to do, but now I am not so sure, as it seems to create as much anomosity as it solves

That's normal, you won't please everyone. My example was extreme, like a ding a second starting from a long way back, gawd knows what was going through his head. I won't recount the full encounter as it will distract from the OP.

Thinking more on this subject, I think it would depend on which day you asked me as to what my answer was. Ultimately you are right that each one needs to be considered on its merits.

 

[Deleted member 23692]

As someone who works in countryside access, I voted for some. The are many FPs that could be safely upgraded to BW, and conversely there are many BWs that would be better downgraded to FP. Also there are many many unrecorded routes that have been used for aeons but never made it onto the definitive map. However, unless there is a massive change in the countless bits of legislation that all concerned have to work with then it's just a pipe dream that only highlights how naïve BC are on the subject.

All this is without giving a thought to the more recent increases in access via the CRoW Act 2000 and the M&CA Act 2009.. that's a massive can of worms in itself

Incidentally the British Horse Society tabled a similar (ill conceived) proposal a few years back and that disappeared just as quick as it appeared... because the legal process needs a massive overhaul before anything can realistically change.

 

[Oldfentiger]

In that instance the onus is on the motorist to obey the law and be mindul of the vulnerable road users or pedestrians, just as it is for a MTBer to be careful.

You wouldn't ban all cars just because some users don't follow the rules. You wouldn't ban cyclists on roads because some don't follow the rules. Same goes with people who ride MTB's. You can't stereotype a whole group just due to the actions of a minority.

We wouldn't, but the ramblers would.
Then that red headed tart with big teeth will be on her high horse again.

 

[MontyVeda]

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

oh i dunno... I quite like hoisting my bike over gates and styles to continue along a rural track. ...it's the inevitable thorn in my tyre I'm not so keen on.

 

[MarquisMatsugae]

I voted some,because as other people said,a walk sometimes is just as good as a cycle.
And I would like to think I could do it in safety,instead of dodging hairy arsed,wild eyed guys like myself*,careering towards me on an MTB.

*I get quite crazy on a bike.

 

[outlash]

I've helped organise an event for my local CC earlier in the year which consisted of 50 or so miles of mixed terrain riding and we made sure that all of the trail sections were on shared use paths (Bridleways or Byways mainly) and luckily we hardly encountered any other people (apart from the nutcase on a bike who a mate nearly punched his lights out, but that's another story....) which is pretty normal for round here.
However, the White Chalk Hills UCX I rode just after Christmas, there was a few sections where a few dozen riders had to share fairly narrow paths with walkers and unfortunately, some people have more common sense than other shall we say.
Not so simple methinks.

 

[Venod]

At the moment its a bit farcical we had two tracks that were seperated from each other by another track about 200 metres in length, this track was used by tractors and I never saw a pedestrian on it, but it was only designated a public footpath, The council even put a sign at each end of it saying cyclist dismount, nobody dismounted, eventually the signs disappeared and the track was incorporated into what is now an official cycle route and cycling is encouraged, there must be many such situations around the country.