AIBU to challenge cyclists riding on rural footpaths?

[Policeanyone101]

If you’re on a bike stay off footpaths!

I live very rurally and in the last few years we’ve had an increase in cyclists on the footpath through part of our fields, occasionally I do challenge these cyclists as I can see them from our house and they always have very arrogant entitled retorts as why they should be there (to get to our path they need to cross either kissing gates or a bridge with v sides to prevent bikes).

I have a horse and ride and by reason of the entitled cyclists I should use footpaths too but I don’t because I have common courtesy and use only permitted places to ride. My DH thinks I’m mad for challenging people but my argument is if we all ignore the rules there will be anarchy? I only ask because DH thinks I traumatised a poor lone cyclist this evening.

Is this sarcastic? Why would someone legally cycling along a path that is to be shared by multiple users dismount and walk around someone who couldn’t be bothered sharing properly? Cyclists cycle faster than walking pace. If you cannot cope with that stick to footpaths. I’m not kern on horses but appreciate that I can expect to see them on bridleways and have to accommodate them accordingly.

It does make a difference. You expect people to get out of the way, and your wheels impact the surface more than footprints do.

Footpaths work because people travel at similar speeds. Not much overtaking, no need to dash out of the way as you have lots of notice someone is coming.

Cyclists change that not just while they are there, but when they aren’t there, with the damage to the surface and the expectation that a bike may appear at any minute.

Ask yourself this. If it’s ok for cyclists, why not electric bikes, mopeds, motorcross?

It's not just being polite around walkers. It's the damage they can often do. I.e. damaging kissing gates and stiles, pushing their bikes through hedges to create a cut-through, churning up the walk-way by the bike wheels etc making it dangerous for walkers due to the mud etc.

Ooh aren’t you clever! I’d have never thought of that.
In reality this comment just shows your ignorance. Actually we spend a lot of time and money harrowing and rolling fields so they stay flat and fencing off the areas that get boggy so that the horses don’t cause holes. Also repairing the stiles, putting hard standing down hard standing in parallel areas that become treacherous. Wherever possible we completely fence off the footpath (if it’s at the edge of a field) to prevent people from misusing them or the horses from scaring people. Keeping land in good condition is hard work. It’s one of the reasons why I get annoyed with bikers arrogantly riding on it without permission or thought.
But even if my horses were causing holes in the fields - at the end of the day it’s my field and they are entitled to be there, whereas bikes aren’t..

Like I said, I only cycle when it is dry (my bike has smooth tyres and I don't like mud). There is no way on earth I am causing any footpath erosion.

And walkers might not overtake each other often (I find it kinda socially awkward to overtake when I am walking faster than someone else). But we all meet walkers coming in the other direction all the time, and people seem to manage to only take up half of the path to let the other party pass without any drama and nobody's day being ruined.

I would be totally happy for electric bikes on the path too. Anything with an engine and I would say you are taking the piss, since you are causing pollution and the road is much more suitable. On the track I have in mind, I'm sure motorbike riders would prefer to be on the road anyway.

I have nearly run over dogs on many occasions because dog owners think it's OK to let their dog off the lead on a shared cycleway. It's ridiculous to do this and just shows the entitled attitude of dog owners rather than cyclists being at fault.

Talk about two wrongs not making a right. this incident was on a footpath and no indication the dog was in any way out of control.

Cyclist (e-bike) and walker here. Absolutely agree that cyclists shouldn't be on footpaths, however I do find shared use paths really difficult for everyone concerned. If I'm walking I feel I need to flatten myself against the side when cyclists are coming through, but if I'm cycling I'm ringing my bell apologetically when I'm coming up behind walkers. There's a great towpath between Bath and Bristol which I love to go on, but I'm always convinced I'm going to be in someone's way!

You really can’t see why getting off and walking is a good idea? Are you being deliberately difficult? Cyclists (although I assume that you would claim - not you) are a menace on footpaths. I’ve been mown down, sworn at and worse over the years so I’m afraid if you dont want to use the A road, get the bus or walk or anything else but don’t ride your bike on a public footpath.

You’ve probably never been challenged because this particular footpath happens to be one which would be suitable for bikes. And presumably you ride as you would on a shared path - considerately, putting the needs of pedestrians first. So do what a PP has suggested, try to get its usage changed. The council may be delighted to ‘create’ a cycle path for free if they can.

Yup. Off lead on a shared path is ridiculous. On lead on a shared path is fairly ridiculous too if you ask me.

I cycle to work and part of the route is a shared use path, which runs alongside but is separate to a national speed limit road. I have been repeatedly told by pedestrians to 'get off the pavement' (there are shared use signs all over it). I see other people cycling on the main road, and getting hooted and shouted at on the grounds that 'there's a cycle path right there!'. However, I agree that as a pedestrian on that path it doesn't feel great if a bike flies past you. I think part of the problem is the same perception problem as you have with cars passing bikes. As the cyclist/driver you can be confident that you're passing someone with plenty of margin, while the pedestrian/cyclist still has a really frightening feeling of something much faster passing pretty close, so what feels reasonable and safe to one feels like a near-death experience to the other.

Cycling is great, but some of these blokes on thier heavy bikes are a menace. Helping on a local primary school outing and some git left one of the little boys with a badly hurt and bleeding nose - just rode off fast.

I guess that to you, I suppose I am being difficult, since you apparently find it difficult to fathom the possibility that there may exist a cyclist who is not a menace.

You get some pedestrians on cyclepaths though as well.

Near me there is a cycle path that runs through the village, and often pedestrians walk along it with poorly controlled off lead dogs blocking the entire path having no consideration for other users.

The key is to be considerate. If it is a cyclepath and you are a pedestrian then make sure you leave space for cyclists to get past and don't let your dog roam off lead all over the path. If you a cyclist slow down as you approach pedestrians and don't try to hurtle past as fast as you can.

If a path is too narrow a cyclist really must dismount to safely pass. Similar for blind bends or when forward visibility is restricted.

If everyone tries to be considerate in their use and help everyone elses use then the world is a better place.

Unfortunately too many people are focused on "their rights" rather than allowing everyone to safely make use of the facilities.

They don't need to get the usage changed. It crosses private land, so the permitted usage (above and beyond pedestrian use, if it's a public footpath) is up to the landowner.

There are 2 separate issues being discussed here really. (Well several, but 2 main ones.)
I don't think there is really any valid argument for anyone using a space that is clearly not intended for them. So footpaths are indeed for walkers, bus lanes are for buses, cycle lanes for bikes and so on. Everyone should literally stay in their own lanes, even if that's inconvenient for them. On a route I regularly ride, I'm on the road, then there's a footpath that connects to a mix used path. I always get off my bike and push it along the 200m or so of footpath even though it's a bit of a nuisance, because it is not my right to ride there.
But shared paths are a different matter. There is no way I am getting off and pushing my bike round every pedestrian like a PP suggested. That would be going for a walk whilst pushing my bike, not riding, and I am entitled to ride there. If there's obviously no way I can pass a walker without them falling down a ravine or standing in a bog etc then I slow down and wait, but often all it actually takes is for the walker/s to keep left so that a cyclist can safely pass - you know, like people are always saying cyclists should do when they're on a road and a car wants to pass. Sometimes you can't of course - potholes, glass, dog and horse shit etc force both cyclists and walkers into the middle of roads/paths sometimes - but where possible, if the slower moving person allows the faster moving one to pass when they can do so, and the faster moving one does so safely then most of the problems go away. It just takes a bit of common sense and courtesy. If I am riding my bike up a steep hill and you're behind me in a car you're going to have to wait sorry, but if there's a gateway at the top I'll pull in and let you pass. Likewise if I'm coming up behind you on a shared path with boggy ground next to it I'll ride behind you but it would be nice if you'd step left when we get to solid ground. But if you're dawdling down the centre of the path with headphoness on, ignoring the world around you including your dog who is roaming around off the lead then too right I'm going to ring my bell, just as I would expect to hear a lot of car horns if I was riding at 15mph in the outside lane of a dual carriageway.

im a cyclist and I often wear headphones so I would probably just ignore you or laugh at you tbh

I've always assumed cyclists are so stupid they don't understand the no cycling sign means no cycling, as there's not a big cross through it. They just see a pretty picture of a bicycle and think that must be showing where to go, in the same way a person on the toilet door shows them which loo to use. Or maybe they're just revoltingly selfish. People that choose a hobby which massively inconveniences everyone else, from walkers, to drivers, to dogs and children, aren't exactly ever going to be terribly concerned about churning up footpaths! Any cyclist by definition is thoughtless and self-centred, as evidenced by many of the responses here.

Lovely like as your little one act play is, I'm not sure the conversation will go quite like that if it ever happens! Also, you might think your position is perfectly logical and reasonable, but you get why the world, and the transport network, isn't set up with each person just making their own rules as seems best to them, right?

On the basis that many many cyclists are difficult (to use your word), can you acknowledge that morally and politely you should be walking or would you prefer to continue to break the law and run the risk
of hurting someone or something very badly, maybe even killing them?

We’ve had cyclists actually riding through our crop fields OP. It’s infuriating! Fortunately that’s not a regular problem for us, but was during Covid times.
I put a post up a few weeks ago about nightmare trespassers on our land and the dog poo they keep leaving.

It’s the speed that some cyclists fly past on paths that unnerve me. Sometimes they appear behind you without you realising and just zoom past. I’d far rather they call out first so I know they are coming and can move over for them.

Great. So the poster you are sneering at can come and ride her horse in your garden and laugh at you when you tell her she has no right to be there. Gotcha. It's her fucking field.

then its trespassing