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.

Mine doesn’t say that. I looked too.

Where a permissive oath is created for walkers, riders and cyclists, they can of course use it. If a landowner has created a path for walkers only, that’s what it is. The reason they should not allow mates on horses or bikes to use it is insurance and signage. It should be clear that it’s a permissive path for walkers and those using it can expect to see only walkers. To change the use on a whim, contrary to the formal agreement, for mates on bikes and horses, is probably invalidating their insurance and what the public anticipates when using the path. If the path is created for various users, it can be signed and insured for that. The landowner chooses the users but then it’s defined in the formal agreement and way marked accordingly. . Basically walkers can expect not to see other users if the agreement is for a “footpath” for walkers only - and many are. It’s foolish of any landowner to allow others to use the path if that use is not in the agreement because the insurance is probably invalid and a claim could be costly. Any council stating all permissive paths are open to all users is simply wrong. They are open to those stated in the formal agreement only, but the landowner chose who they were.

Well several council websites are statng this, and horse owners have strict liability as I understand it. I have ridden over footpaths with landowners permission for many years, and indeed the footpath on my father's land too.

@Stickytreacle The CLA is clear on insurance and path users. Ask what would happen if your horse bolted and the agreement was for walkers only? Who is liable for damages. The landowner can agree horses, walkers and bikes of course and insure for that but it’s foolish to think they can give favours when a permission is granted for walkers only. If it’s not, of course it’s ok but you should know what the agreement is saying for the sake of other users.

My insurance covers me on a footpath with permission, my father's land with footpath is also covered for equestrian use.

In that case, it’s not solely designated as a footpath. There’s multiple use declared but most people don’t do this for obvious reasons. A footpath is for walkers and landowners insure for that sole use. Its still problematic for users if they suddenly see a horse though.

This is the advice on use and signage from the CLA. I assume your signs say only you can use the path? Are other users informed about this? How? It’s clearly a safety issue.

Cyclists are so unbearably entitled.insisting cars give them right of way on roads but suddenly when it comes to.footpaths, they think walkers should duck away for them. No consistency and insufferable entitlement.
The cycling community is one of my pet peeves in life. Not a nice group of people as a whole.

The footpath is in a 20 acre field, there is more of a safety risk from inquisitive bullocks. The landowners permission means that it is not being used as a prow by that individual. We also drive vehicles on Bridleways to cultivate and access land. No signage needed there either

Exactly my experience but here it seems they can do no wrong.

How can you read this thread and think no one on MN ever criticises cyclists?!

Like the vast majority of cyclists, I also drive and walk and I think there are idiot cyclists, idiot drivers and idiot pedestrians, probably in pretty equal proportions because some people, regardless of how they travel, are idiots. I will say, though, that almost every experience I've ever had where another person has put me in real danger has been as a cyclist or a pedestrian, and it's been a driver. The stats bear this out too - cars are much, much more dangerous to pedestrians than cyclists.

Wow what a crazy sweeping generlisation. 'All car drivers are not nice' - sounds deranged doesnt it

There’s cyclists and then there’s groups of very rude entitled cyclists. Clearly not all cyclists are dreadful but quite a few in the countryside who ignore signs and don’t care about other users are a PITA. Some are of course friendly and respect others.