AIBU to challenge cyclists riding on rural footpaths?

There’s cyclists and then there’s groups of very rude entitled cyclists. Clearly not all cyclists are dreadful but quite a few in the countryside who ignore signs and don’t care about other users are a PITA. Some are of course friendly and respect others.

Wow what a crazy sweeping generlisation. 'All car drivers are not nice' - sounds deranged doesnt it

How can you read this thread and think no one on MN ever criticises cyclists?!

Like the vast majority of cyclists, I also drive and walk and I think there are idiot cyclists, idiot drivers and idiot pedestrians, probably in pretty equal proportions because some people, regardless of how they travel, are idiots. I will say, though, that almost every experience I've ever had where another person has put me in real danger has been as a cyclist or a pedestrian, and it's been a driver. The stats bear this out too - cars are much, much more dangerous to pedestrians than cyclists.

Exactly my experience but here it seems they can do no wrong.

The footpath is in a 20 acre field, there is more of a safety risk from inquisitive bullocks. The landowners permission means that it is not being used as a prow by that individual. We also drive vehicles on Bridleways to cultivate and access land. No signage needed there either

Cyclists are so unbearably entitled.insisting cars give them right of way on roads but suddenly when it comes to.footpaths, they think walkers should duck away for them. No consistency and insufferable entitlement.
The cycling community is one of my pet peeves in life. Not a nice group of people as a whole.

This is the advice on use and signage from the CLA. I assume your signs say only you can use the path? Are other users informed about this? How? It’s clearly a safety issue.

In that case, it’s not solely designated as a footpath. There’s multiple use declared but most people don’t do this for obvious reasons. A footpath is for walkers and landowners insure for that sole use. Its still problematic for users if they suddenly see a horse though.

My insurance covers me on a footpath with permission, my father's land with footpath is also covered for equestrian use.

@Stickytreacle The CLA is clear on insurance and path users. Ask what would happen if your horse bolted and the agreement was for walkers only? Who is liable for damages. The landowner can agree horses, walkers and bikes of course and insure for that but it’s foolish to think they can give favours when a permission is granted for walkers only. If it’s not, of course it’s ok but you should know what the agreement is saying for the sake of other users.

Well several council websites are statng this, and horse owners have strict liability as I understand it. I have ridden over footpaths with landowners permission for many years, and indeed the footpath on my father's land too.

Where a permissive oath is created for walkers, riders and cyclists, they can of course use it. If a landowner has created a path for walkers only, that’s what it is. The reason they should not allow mates on horses or bikes to use it is insurance and signage. It should be clear that it’s a permissive path for walkers and those using it can expect to see only walkers. To change the use on a whim, contrary to the formal agreement, for mates on bikes and horses, is probably invalidating their insurance and what the public anticipates when using the path. If the path is created for various users, it can be signed and insured for that. The landowner chooses the users but then it’s defined in the formal agreement and way marked accordingly. . Basically walkers can expect not to see other users if the agreement is for a “footpath” for walkers only - and many are. It’s foolish of any landowner to allow others to use the path if that use is not in the agreement because the insurance is probably invalid and a claim could be costly. Any council stating all permissive paths are open to all users is simply wrong. They are open to those stated in the formal agreement only, but the landowner chose who they were.

Mine doesn’t say that. I looked too.

That isn't what my council website says:- Can I ride a horse or a bike on a footpath?
No, not without the prior consent of the landowner, otherwise you would be committing trespass against the landowner or occupier concerned.

@Stickytreacle That is not true. Once the path is adopted, even if permissive, it has the same rules as a standard adopted footpath on the definitive map. It’s way marked as a footpath and whilst in use, is the same as any other footpath. That’s what landowners agree to. They own the land but not the rights.

Please stop making excuses for aggressive cyclists. Didn’t you read where I said cyclists would cycle through a red light fast at a push button crossing in Bishopsgate? And not stop. Really pissed off me and my colleague.

He was probably in a rage because his life had been put in danger several times on one commute

😂😂I did have a toy dog on wheels when I was a child!

Anyone who has the landowners permission can ride a bike/horse on the land even if it has a footpath.

It’s the rudeness of cyclists I can’t stand too. Used to have a cyclist colleague come into our work who’d be in a rage in the office after his commute. If car drivers can be prosecuted for rage driving (can they? I forget) surely cyclists should be too if they get unnecessarily angry whilst cycling.

Oh I can tell a dickhead inconsiderate dad when I see one. Suppose “I” got hit by a car on that occasion? Or should I give my life up for a parent and child?

I don’t begrudge kids cycling with parents in fact I see them in streets not on pavements round the corner from me. In quieter roads. I see children cycling with the school in our local park too. Being taught how to cycle properly and be considerate of other users of eg pavements.

What if he was going somewhere with his child that was not the park. Why can't you let them go on their way without all this anger. Its lovely seeing parents out cycling with their kids.

RoW yes. But Permissive Paths are different and can be closed by the landowner.

Well said.

He was cycling on a pavement with his child and there was a ramp (pavement works) nearby. If he wanted to cycle with his child he could’ve gone to a park. I have rights too as a pedestrian. And don’t get me started about fast cyclists going through push button crossings eg at bishops-gate and refusing to stop, where I used to work years ago. Happened more than once too.