"Open up countryside paths for people on bikes"

[Jody]

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]

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]

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]

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 The whole system seems outdated and confused.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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Ride cheeky, but be sensible.

 

[Jody]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.