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.

I will always keep my dog on a leash on shared paths or bridal ways. On off road public footpaths I have my dog under control but off lead so she can potter sniff etc. Our local woods also has free roaming young children playing, building dens etc. The problem with cyclists here is when they come very quickly down hill they give virtually no warning so no time to stop small children or dogs running onto the path. In this case I do believe the onus is on the cyclist to take care with their speed (as I’m guessing they shouldn’t really be on a footpath in any case). This is as much for their own safety as for mine, my dogs, small children.

I did have a frustrating incident on a wooded narrow footpath where a cyclist came so quickly down hill that he actually nearly wiped me out. It was muddy, slippery and I fell over trying to make sure I moved out of the way quickly. Needless to say he had already sped off oblivious to the fact I was lying in the mud. So there is a duty of care that cyclists should have on regular off road public footpaths.

at least cyclists and runners are looking after their health which is a good thing given the nations life expectancy is in decline

Are people who are out walking or who are walking their dogs not looking after their heath then?

Sorry but that does seem like a crazy suggestion to me. I hasten to add I do not own land or a footpath or anything.

However, it seems a bit unfair that if there is a recognised footpath across land (a "footpath", clue is in the name) that the landowner should be expected to create a right of way at their own expense that could accommodate travellers who are not on foot. I mean, why should it be incumbent on them?

Also, as a walker, I would rather negotiate the occasional pile of horse shit than nuisance cyclists

Ffs the clue is a pedestrian - a dog is not a pedestrian. It isn't difficult to differentiate..

A landowner can permit horses/cyclists/walkers if they choose, it's called a permitted way. It's none of your business who and what I allow on my land. It's my land not yours.

Do dogs drive?
Do they cycle?

No, they walk on own 4 feet. That makes them pedestrians.

If that’s not good enough for you, then what are the people who walk the dogs?

Pedestrians.

Has anyone been reminded of the tragic case of the cyclist and the woman who supposedly pushed her into traffic? Not saying it’s the same scenario. But seems to be a bit of confusion over the rules so it seems here. My pet hate as a pedestrian is cyclists (adults) cycling on pavements when they know they’re not allowed to do so.

Most of the pavements round here have a little blue sign with a bike on which means that both cyclists and pedestrians allowed to use it, although not sure everyone knows what it means so may assume the law being broken, often see cyclist on the road holding up cars when the permissible pavement is empty

I must check our local high street. I don’t mind so much if it’s in side roads but on a main road where it could force me to step into traffic, it could be positively dangerous at times.

A permissive footpath will still be a footpath, ditto a bridleway. A landowner does not call the shots on upgrading it for mates. Usually landowners agree to permissive paths and expect users to abide by the defined and waymarked use. It’s important they are not abused as many landowners would withdraw them. So there’s no extra rights conferred to mates because that’s not the agreement the landowner will have with the council and the path will be way marked for its legal use.

And one of my good friends was chucking down a marked cycle lane when a pair of off the leash dogs ran into his path from the undergowth, even at 10mph he couldn't stop and went over the handlebars as he hit one of the dogs. Smashed helmet, serious brain injury and a year to get back to work. The dog owner claimed they had done nothing wrong and tried to leave.
There's a responsibility on us all to be responsible - and dogs off lead are anything but responsible.

We can all chuck anecdotes around and lump everyone into a generalisation.

My biggest issue is school mums speeding and parking in cycle lanes. Let's pick that one up shall we...

Yes, of course, everyone should share the space

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

Election Time!

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.