to think that horse riders shouldn't be given equal access to woodland paths as walkers etc?

[Yeahreally]

Read this article in the Guardian and it kinda made my blood boil: www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/aug/12/give-horse-riders-equal-access-to-english-woodlands-say-campaigners

IMO the spokesperson for the Trails Trust is completely ignoring the safety issues at play here. I have no issue with horses but they are big animals and can cause injury if spooked. So is it really sensible to allow them on all pathways of whatever size where runners, cyclists and people just walking their kids or dogs might be? How exactly do you give them a suitably wide berth on a narrow path?

Being a bloke, I'd be massively interested in the MN view on whether there is some sort of inequality issue at play (ie. because riders are more likely to be women there are being disproportionately affected by the current restrictions)? The argument that current laws were unfair because "They (riders) don’t want to walk, they don’t want to cycle.They feel safe in the countryside on a horse,” is incredibly weak and massively ignores how this affects other path users.

Most horse riders are very considerate of pedestrians. Cyclists not so much.

I'd rather share a path with a rider than a MAMIL

Actually I tell a lie
My horse had an issue with power walkers for some reason. And cyclists stood by their bikes and not on them. Normal walking is fine, cyclists fine, anything else is suspicious

I used to ride horses a lot when I was younger, I don't any longer (which is a regret of mine) because of the pressures of work and bringing up a family. I do like to go out running sometimes though. I live in an area where there is an abundance of cycle tracks, footpaths and bridleways in that order. The main offenders by far are cyclists (who seem to think they should have automatic right of way) and people with dogs on those awful extendable dog leads that anyone could trip over and could equally spook a horse and trip up a cyclist.

Nobody rides horses because they think it's safer! That's just a ridiculous thing to say. I probably see maybe 50% walkers, 40% cyclists and 10% horse riders on our local paths - and that's just bridleways, most of the local area is inaccessible to horses because it's footpaths or cycle tracks.

I would be trying to persuade cyclists and dog owners to be more considerate. and to say women are more likely to ride horses because they feel safer that way is really mysogynistic. Riding is expensive and most people don't have access to it

And I agree that while most pedestrians and motorists are very considerate of horses. Cyclists seem to be inconsiderate of motorists, pedestrians and horses. I will admit that this is just my own observation and may not be universal.

Certainly, when marshalling the parkrun, I have had several cyclists complaining to me that the path is blocked (it isn't blocked, it's narrowed. They just need to slow down and be a bit careful) - It's for half an hour, once a week. They all know that and yet they seem to delibirately choose that time to go for a cycle ride just so they can complain. I've never had a horse rider complain, ever. Nor a pedestrian

My bad, not read the article

I don’t believe that horses are no risk to pedestrians, of course they are. And the amount of poo they leave is disgusting. Footpaths are for pedestrians, modes of transport such as cyclists and riders need to be in designated areas or on the road, if you choose to own an animal it’s not up to other people to provide an area for you to exercise it (same goes for dogs)

Scaremongering. Why waste time on this?

Around here the big push for cycling infrastructure as part of development is part of an attempt to get people to cycle rather than drive a car. It’s not provision of leisure space for middle aged white men in Lycra on a Sunday morning (they’re always on roads here), it’s providing transportation so that people can shop, commute, do the school run etc. It’s not always joined up or successful but in cities like London or Cambridge it’s very normal for people including women, students, school kids to cycle to places. I’m all in favour of space for horse riders, but it isn’t comparable to cycling - very few people are horse riding as a mode of transport.

I’m also in favour of more women and diversity in sport, but a sport that requires access to a horse just isn’t accessible to most people- it’s not a lack of paths, it’s a lack of money, lack of knowledge and the fact that culturally it’s very white, very countryside based and quite intimidating for those outside of horsey circles. It’s niche and always will be. It’s an awful lot easier for a teenage girl to try womens football or netball or a gym class or swimming than it is to for them to try horse riding.

I had one issue with horses on a footpath near a railway. A fast train came through which spooked one horse and he started running towards us. I had two small children with me and lifted them over a fence telling them to stand back. The rider managed to steer the horse away from me as it ran down the road. I assume she got control back, but it was slightly alarming at the time. The other horse seemed to ride by OK, but it was odd that the riders didn't apologise or express concern. I do like horses, but I'd say there is a small chance of an accident if they share more paths with walkers.

I would think most horse riders would avoid very narrow paths, and I doubt they'd be moving fast on narrow paths, knees and trees springs to mind!
And they're used to sharing the spaces with walkers, dogs, children cyclists because they already share bridleways and roads with them, so by and large, know how to behave around other users appropriately, or we'd have reports of people being mowed down and jumped on from roads and bridleways - I'm not saying it doesn't happen but it's very rare. The same dangers exist there too, but people don't not use bridleways to walk and cycle on because of that.

As a pp mentioned, often riders pay for access to woodland, to help maintain the tracks, I used to have a permit for a local woodland, for my own and my horse's safety I stuck to the larger paths where I could see and where I could pass others safely, I could ride anywhere I wanted to within the woodland but I didn't just because I could, I also took into consideration my horse and myself and our safety, and often narrow paths have low overhanging trees that are tricky to navigate.
As for the safety aspect of women feeling safer, in 40 years experience of the 'horse world', I've never heard that as a reason to ride out.

And if you ban horses from woodland areas because of the safety aspects, then they're being pushed onto roads more - where many, many people don't want them already and aren't shy about letting you know by driving dangerously. We should be aiming to keep horses off the roads, riders for the most part don't like riding on them, but as already said here, bridleways are in decline, poorly maintained, disjoint and used by other users too.

Around here the big push for cycling infrastructure as part of development is part of an attempt to get people to cycle rather than drive a car. It’s not provision of leisure space for middle aged white men in Lycra on a Sunday morning (they’re always on roads here), it’s providing transportation so that people can shop, commute, do the school run etc. It’s not always joined up or successful but in cities like London or Cambridge it’s very normal for people including women, students, school kids to cycle to places. I’m all in favour of space for horse riders, but it isn’t comparable to cycling - very few people are horse riding as a mode of transport.

But the push in woodlands isn’t about transport, it’s about sport and leisure. So the questions about opening up woodlands to horse riders compared to access for cyclists is about sport and leisure, not transport.

And the big increase in infrastructure support for transport supports increased sport and leisure cycling - both of which (transport and sport&leisure) are dominated by men (even in London).

In general, I’d rather have horse riders in woods than cyclists. In general I’ve found horse riders far more considerate of other users than cyclists. Cyclists really need dedicated space, a large minority of them are not able to share space well with others. But I think it would be far better to keep most of woodland out of bounds for anyone except walkers.

Have you ever used an ordnance survey map to see how many bridle paths there actually are? And how do you propose horse riders actually get there? Bridleways aren't just for horses either. They are shared access paths between walkers, cyclists and horses.

I’d rather see bikes off footpaths before horses, and banned completely from bridleways

And other users trained on proper use of bridleways

Much less disgusting than dog shit. There's plenty of that left all over the place. Horse shit is mushed up grass and harmless. Dog shit carries all sorts of harmful bacteria and toxins.

I’d rather see a horse and rider than a dog or a cyclist. Especially the cyclist types who think shouting “Coming through, move!” is the best way to approach things vs slowing down a bit.

And horse poo is fine. If you’ve got a bag you can take some home, leave it to rot through then spread it on your garden. Can’t say that for dog poo which is vile.

I walk the dog in the Forrest every day - regularly pass horses, generally get dog to one side, no problem, the only issue I have is (some not all) cyclists riding very fast down narrow paths with no regard for other users.

I'd prefer horses to cyclists tbf.

Our local woodland has always allowed horses. We walk there regularly with our young kids and it's never remotely been an issue? We just step to the side and the horses walk calmly passed, sometimes they stop as the children like to say hello.

I'd rather they were out in the woods than on the roads. Nicer for everyone.

I come across horses when walking my dogs in the woods. Never an issue, one dog just lies at his stick as obsessed with it, I call the other dog over and make her sit and loosely hold her collar until the horse has passed. She is unlikely to go over and spook the horse anyway but best to be safe. Why can’t everyone enjoy the same space as long as we are all considerate to others.

I'd welcome them. Not a horse rider myself - but would welcome the sight of them in more places.

The barky dog wouldn't. But that's my problem.

Riding horses for your own personal pleasure is a moronic past-time, and should be banned. Then the problem about where you should be allowed to ride them would disappear.

I walk every day, sometimes in suburban areas, sometimes in country, sometimes by river. The single most fucking selfish, entitled and rude people I meet are cyc.ists. whether MIMILs thinking they are in the tour de france, or women in floaty dresses thinking they are in a flake ad, they rarely warn you of their approach, do not slow down, and expect you to throw yourself aside so they can carry on unimpeded.
And forget a thank you, no such manners or politeness
So yes, would rather have a half-ton beautiful and intelligent creature passing me on a path than a wanker on 2 wheels
Thank you - needed to get that off my chest!

I agree that irreponsible cyclists and people who don't control their dogs are more likely to be a threat to safety than horses and their riders...

Would rather have horses than dogs around