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 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.

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

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.

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!

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 🙈

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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!

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

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.

Well said.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

@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.

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.