Local Ramblers groups opposing calls for more countryside access for cyclists

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 quite agree - a view that is reinforced by recent experiences on the Bristol-Bath cycle path, where cyclists in a hurry make it simply too dangerous (at least in the rush hour within the Britol ring road) for anyone else.

I already have to keep looking around when walking along local towpaths, the rea Valley route etc.and I do enjoy meandering around the countryside (on foot) withour having to worry about faster "traffic", thankyou!

RMurphy195 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 quite agree - a view that is reinforced by recent experiences on the Bristol-Bath cycle path, where cyclists in a hurry make it simply too dangerous (at least in the rush hour within the Britol ring road) for anyone else.

 

I already have to keep looking around when walking along local towpaths, the rea Valley route etc.and I do enjoy meandering around the countryside (on foot) withour having to worry about faster "traffic", thankyou!

I think the Bristol Bath Railway Path is a completely different animal to what the Ramblers are talking about. During rush hour, it is a major cycle commuter route and the rest of the time it's the safest and most convenient way to get between the two cities on a bike.

Complaining that the BBRP is too busy with bikes would be like trying to make the Cycle Superhighways in London shared-use IMO.

Jackson wrote:

So in England pretty much the only place you're technically allowed to ride a bike is on the road, though it is effectively legal for motorists to run you over. 

No, it depends on the status of the right-of-way - footpath or bridlepath. Bridlepath is OK for cyclists, footpath currently isn't.

dottigirl wrote:

Jackson wrote:

So in England pretty much the only place you're technically allowed to ride a bike is on the road, though it is effectively legal for motorists to run you over. 

No, it depends on the status of the right-of-way - footpath or bridlepath. Bridlepath is OK for cyclists, footpath currently isn't.

I was being facetious. Basically it seems nobody wants us anywhere. 

As both a regular cyclist and walker who has just returned this afternoon to one of the most polluted and noisiest parts of London (under the flight path into Heathrow) from a 5 hour walk in northernmost Hertfordshire I'd have to say re  Jackson's "...nobody wants us anywhere", for Christ's sake stop that self-pittying snivelling, learn a bit of the law and try a bit of commonsense!

There's reasons for the designation of rights of way that make sense. Footpaths are nothing more than mud tracks, sodden and ankle deep in mud in winter, unsurfaced and liable to be destroyed by heavy use, especially by anything heavier than your average bod. I've walked tracks that in winter are literally running streams where one has to have a stick to keep one's footing. I've seen them washed a way and destroyed by over use.

That's why horses, motorbikes and motor cars are all not supposed to use them. Cyclists are admittedly not as destructive as the others, but any over use of them will damage (rut, break up) the surface. I've often struggled to walk tracks designated as Byeways Open to All Traffic - BOATs, that are rutted to knee deapth by motorcar off roading enthusiasts.

Cyclists Are allowed to use anything designated as a bridleway or above. The surfaces of such paths are often maintained (built) to a higher standard by the local authority of your area so that they can take the wear. Footpaths probably aren't. In my experience, the higher the classification the greater the size of the track and the greater the work needed to buid it.

Finally, I'd ask you to consider that the solitude offered by walking in the countryside is something that is very important to many people, myself included. Where I live there are aircraft passing over our house every two minutes at a few hundred feet, which is why I go a long way out of my way to seek peace and quiet. Having it disturbed by often inconsiderate and ill informed cyclists and motorcyclists (I have been threatened by the latter for failing to step aside so they can pass by on a footpath) is not something that needs to be. There's space out there for all to enjoy an appropriately.

HV3 wrote:

 

As both a regular cyclist and walker who has just returned this afternoon to one of the most polluted and noisiest parts of London (under the flight path into Heathrow) from a 5 hour walk in northernmost Hertfordshire I'd have to say re  Jackson's "...nobody wants us anywhere", for Christ's sake stop that self-pittying snivelling, learn a bit of the law and try a bit of commonsense!

There's reasons for the designation of rights of way that make sense. Footpaths are nothing more than mud tracks, sodden and ankle deep in mud in winter, unsurfaced and liable to be destroyed by heavy use, especially by anything heavier than your average bod. I've walked tracks that in winter are literally running streams where one has to have a stick to keep one's footing. I've seen them washed a way and destroyed by over use.

That's why horses, motorbikes and motor cars are all not supposed to use them. Cyclists are admittedly not as destructive as the others, but any over use of them will damage (rut, break up) the surface. I've often struggled to walk tracks designated as Byeways Open to All Traffic - BOATs, that are rutted to knee deapth by motorcar off roading enthusiasts.

Cyclists Are allowed to use anything designated as a bridleway or above. The surfaces of such paths are often maintained (built) to a higher standard by the local authority of your area so that they can take the wear. Footpaths probably aren't. In my experience, the higher the classification the greater the size of the track and the greater the work needed to buid it.

Finally, I'd ask you to consider that the solitude offered by walking in the countryside is something that is very important to many people, myself included. Where I live there are aircraft passing over our house every two minutes at a few hundred feet, which is why I go a long way out of my way to seek peace and quiet. Having it disturbed by often inconsiderate and ill informed cyclists and motorcyclists (I have been threatened by the latter for failing to step aside so they can pass by on a footpath) is not something that needs to be. There's space out there for all to enjoy an appropriately.

Not all cyclists or even motorcyclists are ill mannered and inconsiderate; some but not all pedestrians *are*. Some cyclists get outside because they want quiet and solitude too (myself included) - not all cyclists in the countryside are LET'S OFF ROAD, you know.

HV3 wrote:

 

As both a regular cyclist and walker who has just returned this afternoon to one of the most polluted and noisiest parts of London (under the flight path into Heathrow) from a 5 hour walk in northernmost Hertfordshire I'd have to say re  Jackson's "...nobody wants us anywhere", for Christ's sake stop that self-pittying snivelling, learn a bit of the law and try a bit of commonsense!

There's reasons for the designation of rights of way that make sense. Footpaths are nothing more than mud tracks, sodden and ankle deep in mud in winter, unsurfaced and liable to be destroyed by heavy use, especially by anything heavier than your average bod. I've walked tracks that in winter are literally running streams where one has to have a stick to keep one's footing. I've seen them washed a way and destroyed by over use.

That's why horses, motorbikes and motor cars are all not supposed to use them. Cyclists are admittedly not as destructive as the others, but any over use of them will damage (rut, break up) the surface. I've often struggled to walk tracks designated as Byeways Open to All Traffic - BOATs, that are rutted to knee deapth by motorcar off roading enthusiasts.

Cyclists Are allowed to use anything designated as a bridleway or above. The surfaces of such paths are often maintained (built) to a higher standard by the local authority of your area so that they can take the wear. Footpaths probably aren't. In my experience, the higher the classification the greater the size of the track and the greater the work needed to buid it.

 

You may, for all I know, be right in S E England, but in the Lakes the distinction is essentially historic, rather than about his 'built'  the path is. 

Fortunately we lack this weird differentiation in Scotland.

HV3 wrote:

 

Footpaths are nothing more than mud tracks, sodden and ankle deep in mud in winter, unsurfaced and liable to be destroyed by heavy use, especially by anything heavier than your average bod. I've walked tracks that in winter are literally running streams where one has to have a stick to keep one's footing. I've seen them washed a way and destroyed by over use.

Generalisations... there is a 'footpath' I walk on occasionally that has houses either side of it and it is surfaced with bitumen - cars drive over it to ge to the houses. I can't, however legally ride my bike on it. There are many footpaths that are wider and more robust (surface wise) than bridleways, certainly where I ride/walk. If it is wide enough for two or three people to walk side by side then it can easily be shared with cyclists - and indeed, for the most part, common sense prevails and we all get on happily together.