AIBU to challenge cyclists riding on rural footpaths?

Hardly, once a RoW is enacted it's virtually impossible to get rid of it.

A lot of time there are indications that paths are for walkers only, i.e. kissing gates and stiles or very narrow openings just wide enough for legs. Cyclists must be pretty stupid not to realise they're not wanted on a particular path if they have to manhandle their bike over a wall or a stile or upend it to get through a kissing gate!

Police have always had the discretion not to prosecute cyclists for cycling on pavements where the road is dangerous - this was stated in Parliament years ago and needs to be better known.

Parliament has also set out guidance for safe cycle route design in Local Transport Note 1/20 - the problem is that there isn’t a coherent cycle network in the UK & local authorities vary considerably in how the design routes. For example in my local authority, we had a fairly recent consultation where the plans didn’t seem to bear much if any resemblance to the LTN1/20 guidance.

Unfortunately, if you don’t have a safe cycle network, you are going to get people cycling on the pavements because they don’t feel safe on the roads, particularly when cycling with children. You are also going to get some people behaving inconsiderately when they do this, because some people behave like this however they are travelling eg inconsiderate drivers is another reason why people end up on the pavement.

There’s a good account of why the National Cycle Network is the way it is in Potholes and Pavements by Laura Laker. Unfortunately we’re in this situation because a lot of people object loudly when spending on cycle routes is proposed by local authorities- but then people also loudly object whenever people cycle on the road, on the pavement etc. which is the natural consequence of not having decent routes.

I’m aware of the horrific case you mention - but it really has nothing to do with the current situation. It was a case where a woman cycled on a route that was thought to be a shared route, a woman with complex needs shouted at her because she thought she shouldn’t be there with the result that the first woman fell in front of a car and died and the other woman ended up in prison before her conviction was quashed. The local authority in the meantime had to search through their records as they had no idea if the route was a shared route or not - that is how bad our cycle network is.

As far as the OP’s point is - I agree with her that people should respect rights of way and generally take better care of the countryside. But it’s a shame that it’s so difficult to discuss this without descending into a general criticism of cyclists just because people don’t like them.

I think many of the replies are from people who see the countryside as a giant theme park there primarily for entertainment. It isn't. It is firstly a place where farmers work to provide food amd other goods. There are rights of way where farmers have to allow people through their land but many of the paths are Permitted Paths where the landowner can give and revoke permission. And where people abuse this we are likely to lose many paths.

I’m surprised so many people think the OP is being unreasonable.
As an adult cyclist, I use the road or legitimate dual-use paths (though I dislike these because they are not really safe for pedestrians).
As a pedestrian, I use pavements, but I am frequently harassed or endangered by cyclists who don’t give a damn about anyone else’s rights.

Having learnt early on to be cautious and to recognise that cars are bigger, faster and very much less vulnerable than me, I’ve ridden safely and legally for decades.

Yes, I realise that luck plays a part too. And I don’t ever want to be the bad luck that befalls some innocent pedestrian.

What really irritates me is antisocial cyclists whining that they’re not safe on the roads because car drivers. The fact that they make pavements unsafe for pedestrians is irrelevant to them.

Have you ever seen a dog on wheels?
🐕🐕🐕🐾🐾🐾

Your council (county council, if you still have two tiers of local government) should have a Rights of Way officer who deals with this sort of thing. You could raise it with them.

Where I live, we have a very active local group of walkers who put up signs provided by the council. The signs are yellow for footpaths and blue for bridleways, so you can see from quite a way off which sort of path you're on.

However, it still doesn't stop cyclists from using footpaths. I live in a national park that's within easy reach of a big city, and very close to a long distance trail. At the weekends the paths are packed with cyclists who bring their bikes on the train, and they often use the footpaths because it makes the route a few miles shorter than the bridleway.

Some summer Sundays, the drive to my MIL's on rural roads in Sussex and Surrey feels like being caught up in the Tour de France.

Whichever way you go, there's no way of avoiding a steep climb when you reach the North Downs, and having to drive at walking pace because of clusters of "Lycra louts" is bloody frustrating.

Dh has been quite seriously injured due to absolute numpties walking their dogs on a cycle path at commuting time using those stupid long leads straddling the bike path 🙈

Quite funny that everyone seems to detest the group that they are not!

Do it myself when I’m in the car I think bloody cyclists when I’m on my bike I detest the cars!

Dogs are not pedestrians.

Dictionary definition:
A pedestrian is a person traveling on foot, such as a walker or someone using a wheelchair, especially in areas shared with vehicles.

A lot of footpath surfaces are unmade and are easily torn up by bikes or horses.

I drive, I cycle, I walk my dogs and I'm moderately deaf. The number of times I've been put in serious danger all involve cyclists on either pavements or narrow pedestrian footpaths when I'm walking. I'm assuming they think I can hear them speeding up behind me and will just jump out of their way in time. Obviously not all cyclists use footpaths as their own personal racing track but it only takes one idiot to cause serious harm. You'd think, as cyclists often complain about drivers, they'd be more mindful of the damage they can also inflict but that doesn't seem to be the case.

I live near the Moors .. there are signs that say “no bicycles” that the cyclists rip down, gates to stop cyclists, that they lift bikes over. They ride down footpaths all the time, there is woodland, and it’s quite steep and narrow, and they race down there. The moors are still recovering from fires a few years back, and there are no cycle paths across, or cycles allowed .. yet the Moors are filled with deep ruts from cyclists. There is a circuit for Mountain Bikes only a few miles away, they could go there, but can’t be arsed.
We have been barged out the way on footpaths numerous times - and the one time we did challenge someone, he got off his bike and went to punch DH.

Arrogant twats

We also get lots of dog owners letting their dogs off the lead .. we had sheep killed only 2 weeks ago.

You begrudge a father cycling with his kid inconveniencing you for a minute? He was also trying to keep his kid safe

It’s this arrogant know it all behaviour that gives all cyclists a bad name.

Cyclists are selfish, entitled, selfish, arrogant......shall I go on?

It is not allocated as dual. That’s the point. It’s also a one way triangle part of 3 roads in that area’s high streets. The one time which really pissed me off, there was works on the pavement which I as a pedestrian had to use (ramp to make it safe), a man and child were cycling the wrong way towards me, on the pavement, so I had to step in the road avoiding the ramp area I should’ve safely used so they could pass. This was during Covid.

What a long winded way of saying "I know better than everyone else."

I have nearly as much confidence in you as you have in yourself that you could edit it down and still get the core meaning across.

I live near some paths that I’d love to mountain bike on, but they’re footpaths and like pavements they’re for walking on. The rules apply to me, it’s that simple.

I wouldn’t have thought a busy high street pavement would have been allocated as suitable to be dual tbh, particularly if narrow. Where possible our local council has put cycle lanes on the roads where the footpaths are too busy/narrow

As I said, two wrongs don't make a right. Dogs SHOULD be on leads and Cyclists SHOULD be going slow enough to be able to stop and/or change course to avoid obstacles.

If they're going too fast to be able to stop when an OAP moves into their path, then they're arrogant. They should be going slow enough to anticipate things that are likely to happen.

It’s another living creature. Surely you aren’t that arrogant that you think you have the right to hurt something that’s in your way just because it’s not a human?

It’s a good time to bring this up with your councillors.

Election Time!