# "Open up countryside paths for people on bikes"



## NorthernDave (7 Jul 2016)

"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 (7 Jul 2016)

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 (7 Jul 2016)

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 (7 Jul 2016)

Spinney said:


> 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 said:


> 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 (7 Jul 2016)

NorthernDave said:


> 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 (7 Jul 2016)

NorthernDave said:


> "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.
> 
> ...



And thousands of miles of roads too...


----------



## Drago (7 Jul 2016)

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


----------



## welsh dragon (7 Jul 2016)

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 (7 Jul 2016)

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 (7 Jul 2016)

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 (7 Jul 2016)

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 (7 Jul 2016)

NorthernDave said:


> 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 mil*e 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 (8 Jul 2016)

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


----------



## coffeejo (8 Jul 2016)

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 (8 Jul 2016)

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.


----------



## Jody (8 Jul 2016)

Booyaa said:


> And thousands of miles of roads too...



But its about riding off road. 

Personally I think there is need to open some of the countryside up but not all. I would like to see the option of certain walking routes allowing for a veto on areas of SSCI, places that are sensitive to heavy use and paths/trails that are just not suitable. All we as mountain bikers can do is be courteous, pass slow and wide (or stop while the peds walk past) wilst trying to educate other riders. You only have to look at the good work Peak MTB (in collaboration with other user groups) is doing to see what a positive effect it can have educating all sides.


----------



## martint235 (8 Jul 2016)

I voted no too. Mainly because of the threads I've read on here where cyclists feel they have the right of way over pedestrians on shared paths and that those pesky peds should get out of their way just at the ring of a bell. I'd quite like to keep those people out of the countryside.


----------



## Venod (8 Jul 2016)

I voted some paths not all, I ride a lot of footpaths that are suitable for cycling and have very little use from walkers, common sense has to be used, the opening of footpaths would help get more people riding and enjoying the countryside, my tyre tracks cause no more damage than a pair of walking boots.

Edit: Just changed my vote to yes, as the complications it would bring about deciding which paths are suitable would make it less likely to be implemented.


----------



## Glow worm (8 Jul 2016)

Some paths definitely yes. Not all. The short stretch of path the OP describes to reach a bridleway being a good example. There are several examples around here too where we have footpaths that are wider and better surfaced than some bridleways. The whole system seems outdated and confused. A review would be most welcome.

Any review would need to be coordinated through all user groups. Clearly I would be advocating for cyclists and might miss perfectly valid arguments from walkers who would naturally think differently. Perhaps the Local Access Forums might be a good start. Every county has one and they are closely linked to the local authorities (County Councils or Unitaries). A member of each user group (walkers, cyclists, horse riders and even off 4WD vehicle users*) sits on each Local Access Forum and it seems a fair way of looking at stuff- they also know their local patches extremely well.

(*Edit - I meant 'off road 4WD' - I promise that was not a Freudian slip!
Edit 2 I was referring just to England above, not NI, Scotland or Wales)


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (8 Jul 2016)

Living in NI and not having access to anything remotely like this, Id give my spare organs to have anything like 1/3 of the offroad riding. What we do have is 5 purpose built trail centres that I have encountered walkers on all of, many times.

The ROI has right to roam and a great trail infrastructure, abeit a 600 mile round trip


----------



## Jody (8 Jul 2016)

martint235 said:


> I voted no too. Mainly because of the threads I've read on here where cyclists feel they have the right of way over pedestrians on shared paths and that those pesky peds should get out of their way just at the ring of a bell. I'd quite like to keep those people out of the countryside.



Just because a small minority do this and you have read a thread or two doesn't mean that should be the basis of your decision. Just like the majority of road cyclists don't jump red lights, ride on pavements or feel entitled over other road users. Does this sound familiar, "Those lycra louts don't follow the rules. They should be banned from the road. I once saw one...........", so lets get some prespective on this. Its the same anecdotal evidence that others use, of ignore the majority that follow the rules and instead focus on the one who didn't. There are ass-hats in all walks of life using all modes of transport, so lets just try and get along.


----------



## Jody (8 Jul 2016)

Glow worm said:


> A member of each user group (walkers, cyclists, horse riders and even off 4WD vehicle users) sits on each Local Access Forum and it seems a fair way of looking at stuff- they also know their local patches extremely well.



Exactly what is happening with Peak MTB with the acsess forum. All sides get to air their views to structure a plan so its a step in the right direction.


----------



## Crackle (8 Jul 2016)

I voted No, as a walker I'm not keen on sharing the path, I don't find it relaxing. There probably are paths which are suitable but generally, no. Scotland has a huge landmass compared to population, England and Wales are quite different.


----------



## Cubist (8 Jul 2016)

Ride cheeky, but be sensible.


----------



## Jody (8 Jul 2016)

Crackle said:


> I voted No, as a walker I'm not keen on sharing the path, I don't find it relaxing.



As a walker you would have been in the same position in years gone by until mass tresspass. Sometimes people have to fight for their rights.


----------



## martint235 (8 Jul 2016)

Jody said:


> Just because a small minority do this and you have read a thread or two doesn't mean that should be the basis of your decision. Just like the majority of road cyclists don't jump red lights, ride on pavements or feel entitled over other road users. Does this sound familiar, "Those lycra louts don't follow the rules. They should be banned from the road. I once saw one...........", so lets get some prespective on this. Its the same anecdotal evidence that others use, of ignore the majority that follow the rules and instead focus on the one who didn't. There are ass-hats in all walks of life using all modes of transport, so lets just try and get along.


I don't go on shared paths much but whenever I do, there appears to be an impatient muppet who thinks they own it. That minority is enough for me to want to preserve the peace and quiet for walkers. MTBs have bridleways if they want to go off road.


----------



## coffeejo (8 Jul 2016)

Jody said:


> As a walker you would have been in the same position in years gone by until mass tresspass. Sometimes people have to fight for their rights.


Yeah: the right to enjoy a relaxing walk without worrying about something faster coming round the next corner. In a competition between my bones and a bike frame, I know who will come off worse. And no, not everyone who enjoys walking has the agility to dive out of the way of mountain bikes enjoying a downhill stretch. I've been caught out before now and that's on a shared path where I'm looking and listening out for MTBs.

And no, it's not the same as motorists complaining about cyclists on the roads because 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.


----------



## Glow worm (8 Jul 2016)

Crackle said:


> I voted No, as a walker I'm not keen on sharing the path, I don't find it relaxing. There probably are paths which are suitable but generally, no. Scotland has a huge landmass compared to population, England and Wales are quite different.



I take your point, but some over-generalisation there. Here on the Fens you can often ride for miles without seeing a soul. The Wirral is no doubt very different, but I'm always wary of lumping places together without deeper analysis.


----------



## Crackle (8 Jul 2016)

Jody said:


> As a walker you would have been in the same position in years gone by until mass tresspass. Sometimes people have to fight for their rights.


Thankfully they did and I'm for more open access but I don't necessarily think that should be extended to all groups. On principal I'm against shared paths, that's only mitigated by the fact, that as a cyclist, shared paths can be very useful, so in fact it's an issue I'm conflicted on and I don't think there's an easy balance just an uncomfortable compromise.


----------



## Jody (8 Jul 2016)

Can agree with you on that point @Crackle and I'm not for open access to all areas, but for the willingness to review current rights through local access forums so we can link bridleways and give better access not just for cycling but also horse riders. I can only talk in terms of my locality but there is enough room for everyone to enjoy the area without damaging it for future generations, whilst avoiding conflict between user groups. It doesn't have to be an uncomfortable compromise if all goups work together. Rights would have to be looked at on an individual basis for the area rather than a change of law accross the board.


----------



## Jody (8 Jul 2016)

coffeejo said:


> 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 (8 Jul 2016)

Jody said:


> 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 (8 Jul 2016)

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 (8 Jul 2016)

Jody said:


> 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 (8 Jul 2016)

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 (8 Jul 2016)

Jody said:


> 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 (8 Jul 2016)

coffeejo said:


> 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 (8 Jul 2016)

Crackle said:


> 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. 



Crackle said:


> 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 (8 Jul 2016)

Jody said:


> 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 (8 Jul 2016)

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 (8 Jul 2016)

Jody said:


> 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 (8 Jul 2016)

Drago said:


> 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 (8 Jul 2016)

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 (9 Jul 2016)

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 (9 Jul 2016)

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.


----------



## shouldbeinbed (9 Jul 2016)

Afnug said:


> my tyre tracks cause no more damage than a pair of walking boots.



A foot is more up and down than a constant circular saw into the surface, forward momemtum on a bike is achieved by dragging the wheel across the surface, walking is the body falling forwards over a planted static foot, even the most extreme of walking boots don't match the tread depth or more sawtooth like pattern of a knobbly MTB, there is more weight of rider and bike combined & you're pressing a tyre down onto a smaller contact point than a foot, condensing the impact on the surface in drawing pin style. The constant ground contact of the bike tyre far more effectively creates the cut channel channel that water collects and sits in to puddle & start the erosive process as it seeps away in deeper more concentrated patterns of tread spots, as well as forcing all and sundry to start creating passing places where it doesn't evaporate or seep away as quickly so eroding and damaging the otherwise solid side structure of the path and hastening its demise. Even without water, the bikes will not follow exactly the same tracks as one another, evwn front to rear wheel on occasions making for more very close set ridges and furrows that it takes little or nothing to break the ridges and destabilise and lose the whole path surface far more quickly. Walking tends to stamp it all down more uniformly over time, keeping the surface integrity for much longer as it inevitably channels out.

Not to say foot traffic doesn't eventually do the same to a path but a push bike does it a heck of a lot faster and a motorbike faster still.

In the same way your circular saw would eventually cut wood if you didn't set the blade spinning, left the guard in place and just repeatedly banged it down onto the wood.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (9 Jul 2016)

Tim Hall said:


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


This. I have to so that regularly.

I voted no.


----------



## Venod (9 Jul 2016)

shouldbeinbed said:


> there is more weight of rider and bike combined



It all depends on your weight and the size of your rucksack (walking) and bike (riding) a bit of an assumption.


----------



## swansonj (9 Jul 2016)

I support a differentiation between paths suitable for cycling (bridleways) and paths not suitable, because of surface condition/erosion or volume of usage, for cycling (footpaths). But isn't part of the problem that the original categorisation into one of the other was done piecemeal, locally, with little standardisation, and is hence inconsistent?


----------



## Deleted member 23692 (9 Jul 2016)

swansonj said:


> I support a differentiation between paths suitable for cycling (bridleways) and paths not suitable, because of surface condition/erosion or volume of usage, for cycling (footpaths). But isn't part of the problem that the original categorisation into one of the other was done piecemeal, locally, with little standardisation, and is hence inconsistent?


Yes. Paths were claimed on historical usage at Parish level in the early 1950's, which is why you'll often get a dead end or change of status at a parish boundary.

Cycle usage wasn't even accommodated in the 1949 Act and it wasn't until the early 1980's (W&CA) that cycles were given a legal concession to use BW's. However there is no duty on a highway authority to main a BW for cycles usage, only for horses. Infact at the same time the use of 'horse' on a BW was further clarified to inclube mules and donkeys.


----------



## growingvegetables (9 Jul 2016)

Maybe we Scots are just better at that "vision thing". The Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003. 

There are huge issues of land ownership and public access in England. Until, and unless, the English electorate have an appetite for the challenge of those issues (ala Kinder Scout Trespass), I'm sorry, but cyclists' access to footpaths is pretty much a non-starter. It can only be blocked, by the legal structures around landownership.


----------



## clockworksimon (12 Jul 2016)

A lot of footpaths are pretty rubbish or impossible to ride properly on. After trying out lots of footpaths on my mountain bike during quieter times of year I have got this out of my system. Narrow, twisty, muddy paths with lots of stiles are a waste of time to try and ride on. Maybe naively, I voted to be able to ride on all paths. Let natural selection sort it out. Also, whether legal right of way on bike, foot, horse or whatever, showing due consideration and common sense to other users and the local environment is a must.


----------



## MarquisMatsugae (12 Jul 2016)

I will get lynched for this,but here goes.
I hate horse riders,as they seem to think everyone,no matter where,should clear a wide path for them.
It's the smug higher than mighty attitude they posess,the world must stop what it's doing,because "I have a horse peasant".
I know full well you have to slow down or stop so as to not spook the horse,but one of them asked me to put my bike over a field wall once,as the horse "seems upset by it"
Piss off dickheads


----------

