You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
“we can ride on paths now the EU can’t tell us what to do.”
Post of the year 😂😂😂😂😂
“ Personally I think that a change to allow human powered pedal cycles on to footpaths with a “give way” obligation is the way forward. If your ebike is too heavy to get over the stile then it’s tough and if you have modded it it should be subject to the same laws that motorcrossers are and at risk of confiscation and crushing”
Mainly agreed (and as I understand it if it is modded improperly it jumps from ebike/bicycle to motorbike anyway) but I’d like to see ‘share considerately’ as opposed to giveaway (at this point in time cyclists seem to be lesser than dogs where I am , even on formal cycle paths).
Also, having done a lot of walking recently we’ve come up against rather too many ‘difficult’ stiles (*missus is 4ft 10, aged 67 and has a damaged shoulder, meaning one arm doesn’t work properly), some of which is clearly malicious (e,g a narrow 2 step stile with a very heavily sprung 3ft high gate on top of the fence, 4 in a row in < 1/4 mile), some which I suspect is ‘cost efficiency’ (just one step to get over standard height fence with no high support pole) and rather a lot of badly maintained step missing, support missing, wobbly as hell as post/s rotted jobs, so I’d be up for a bit more stile standardisation/design consentency - especially if we want to encourage families/people with prams/small kids, the elderly and less fit to do more walking.
*edited re below - and kissing gates that a 60kg regular exercise woman has to take a 15l daypack off to get through.
If your ebike is too heavy to get over the stile then it’s tough
What about folks who can't lift standard bikes over stiles? I'm not really sure my wife at 5'1" and 50kg or daughter at the same height, could lift their bikes over many of the kissing gates I come across.
I was pleased with myself a couple of summers ago when one of a group of bobblehats standing around on a trail (defo a bridleway) told me I couldn't ride my bike here; I reminded her that not only could I, but that she had just seen me do so and left her to her confusion
The point about stiles is that any requirement to put gates in will kill the principle that nothing needs to change
As for poor stiles/gates just report them, I do
I was pleased with myself a couple of summers ago when one of a group of bobblehats standing around on a trail (defo a bridleway) told me I couldn’t ride my bike here; I reminded her that not only could I, but that she had just seen me do so and left her to her confusion
"You can't cycle along here"
"Yes I can. Want me to show you. Again?"
I've had a PDNP ranger telling me I'm on a footpath, when, in fact, I was on a very well-used bridleway (Stanage plantation). He didn't care to look at a map. He was kind of polite and definitely not threatening, but he was treating me as if I was in the wrong.
I find it ironic that people are willing to commit a criminal offence (blocking a public highway) to try and stop others committing a civil one (trespass) when they have no standing. You can try pointing that irony out, but IME most people aren't too tuned in to irony when they're angry.
“we can ride on paths now the EU can’t tell us what to do.”
Needs a bit of finessing but need to work the Brexit angle in somehow too.
After my bare-knuckle near death experience I dreamt up "No. Not now Boris is in - I've taken back control" for the next time I get the same ol' shit
We had it a few years ago on Helvellyn. Heading from the top towards Sticks & some redsock shouts, 'you shouldn't be on here!', to which we replied, 'It's a bridleway', 'well you shouldn't be on it', 'But It's a bridleway', 'well you shouldn't be on it', 'It's a bridleway though, so we're allowed on it, 'well you shouldn't be' etc etc etc. Went on for ages.
most people aren’t too tuned in to irony when they’re angry
And it is the 'why?' that is important* here.
When it boils down to it, unless you've ridden into them, you are doing them no harm whatsoever. So what are they angry at? The usual answer, when you really get to it, is 'life in general'. At which point you tend to realise that they will be angry at anything they happen to take a dislike to. At which point.... well.... **** 'em.🤷♂️
*Important yet totally in the 'life is too short to really find out' file.
Oh man, I love the idea of telling the next miserable old sod who takes issue with my presence that thanks to Brexit MTB'ers can go where we please, at least that shoud prompt some very confused googling when he gets back home.
I wouldn't want people thinking I'd voted for this shit, but I think you could confuse them even more with:
"I didn't vote for it, but at least Brexit means fewer restrictions on where I can ride."
“I didn’t vote for it, but at least Brexit means fewer restrictions on where I can ride.”
Maybe add a "do you own research" in for good measure 😛
Nobody suggested having a water pistol loaded with lime squash to fire at the defiant lane blockers? 😆
When it boils down to it, unless you’ve ridden into them, you are doing them no harm whatsoever. So what are they angry at?
The possibility that you *might* ride into them. The fact that they have to "keep an eye out" for cyclists (in spite of the fact that the vast majority of walkers/joggers/dog walkers etc haven't got the slightest clue of what is going on around them 95% of the time anyway).
You occasionally also get things about "ruining the peace and quiet" - usually from someone who is wearing headphones or, even worse, listening to some shit music on a bluetooth speaker or via a mobile phone loudpseaker.
And on one occasion, we got the whole thing about "erosion" and ruining the landscape as his dog quite happily dug a massive hole just to one side of the FP.
As you say, irony is not their strong point!
At the start of the first lockdown I let a walker go ahead at a junction. As he passed he muttered:
"Bikes aren't allowed on this path"
"Where does it say that?" I asked
"The end of my fist!" He claimed
"Away an bile yer heid in a pan o' yer oan piss" I politely replied
I quite like the mental imagery that goes along with the phrase. No idea where I first heard it.
“Away an bile yer heid in a pan o’ yer oan piss”
I haven't got the accent for that, I'm afraid. Although the act of trying to do it then cracking up laughing at my own attempt might provoke a full-on exploding gammon incident. So I might give it a crack anyway. 🙊
Whenever I have a "discussion" with a motorist, about àn unsafe pass, I like to finish the conversation with,..
"I'd just like to point out the irony of you not being willing to wait a few seconds for a safe overtaking opportunity, whilst being perfectly happy to sit here for several minutes, arguing about it. May I suggest that you re-asses your time prioritisation strategy"
“You can’t cycle along here”
“Yes I can. Want me to show you. Again?”
I'm keeping that one for use this weekend....
Hi All, well its been quite amusing reading all the responses and I am liking some of the replies which I will put in the bank for any future incidents of this nature.
All I am going to do is next time I seethe person is to show him copies of the Map and the email and see if that does the job. If it doesn't then I might just let the council know he is obstructing a bridleway though I suspect nothing will come of that.
Where does it say in law that it is forbidden to cycle along a footpath (not a pavement?)
It doesn't, does it?
I wish I was as witty as some of the folk on here. All I can ever come out with is "**** off" 🙁
Back in the day a friend of mine was prosecuted for cycling on the pavement. He contested it and won - he was cycling through the pedestrianised part of a town centre at 06:00 on his way to work, it wasn't a pavement as there was no road.
Policeman must have been bored and my friend was a very literal guy
Mass trespass anyone? If it's ok for them it's ok for us!!
If it’s ok for them it’s ok for us!!
The ramblers werent overly keen on that whole mass trespass thing.
Whenever I have a “discussion” with a motorist, about àn unsafe pass, I like to finish the conversation with,..“I’d just like to point out the irony of you not being willing to wait a few seconds for a safe overtaking opportunity, whilst being perfectly happy to sit here for several minutes, arguing about it. May I suggest that you re-asses your time prioritisation strategy”
I had a motorist floor it past me to go through a red light (it had only just changed, I was rolling up to it slowing down, he missed me by inches as he went through it). I gesticulated after him and he obviously saw it in the rear view mirror because he slammed the brakes on, pulled over on the pavement on the other side and got out, looking to get across the road. Thankfully, traffic was too heavy for him to cross and after 15 seconds or so he got back in his car and drove off.
Too busy to wait at a set of lights, plenty of time to get into a fight about him driving through them though.
Where does it say in law that it is forbidden to cycle along a footpath (not a pavement?)
A footpath is a right of way across private land, it's existence gives rights to those who use it.
A cycle is determined to be a vehicle, (subject to highway code etc) as vehicles are not included in the rights to access a footpath you commit the civil offence of trespass (also watch out for bylaws and public space protection orders) if you ride them. Offences escalate when you start arguing with the landowner or his appointed representative (breach of the peace etc)
How about “we can ride on paths now the EU can’t tell us what to do.”
"I'm taking my country back!"
Tell them it's a bridleway and you're just doing a recon of a route and you'll have 500 riders coming through next Saturday.
Mostly correct. Technically it's a civil tort rather than an offence (which is criminal)
Its also worth being aware of the principle
Nulla poena sine lege
Which says that something has to be defined as illegal for it to be illegal.
I haven't come across anything that says a 'vehicle' can't use a footpath. CRoW Act states a 'mechanically propelled vehicle'.
CRoW Act states a ‘mechanically propelled vehicle’.
That's ebikes stuffed then
would pedals moving a chain drive turning some gearing turning a wheel not also meet the definition of mechanically propelled?
The only difference is the power source.
Does it matter?
We know it's technically a tort to ride a bike on a footpath, even if its apparently never been tested.
How about we all actually do something positive via the Cycling UK campaign to get it sorted, rather than squabble amongst ourselves yet again?
(Other campaigns may be available)
Does it matter?
To me, no, I don't have an ebike
To the landowner/public, probably, having watched them storm around the local hills it is essentially a different activity to the one that leaves me breathing out my arse huffing and puffing at not much more than walking pace
I'm sure lots of ebikers will tell me I'm wrong, but it's not ebikers that need to be persuaded
To the landowner/public, probably, having watched them storm around the local hills it is essentially a different activity to the one that leaves me breathing out my arse huffing and puffing at not much more than walking pace
I'm never sure how much this argument holds water. Similar comments about MXers vs "hooligans on trials bikes". The general public don't know or care, they see people ragging around on motorbikes.
Same with cycling - most of the general public can barely distinguish between a road bike and a BMX, the idea that they're examining bikes passing them and judging each individually I think is stretching it. It's why you get the whole "bloody cyclists" trope as everyone is lumped in with everyone else.
I’m never sure how much this argument holds water.
No one is yet, however people will be wondering how they are managing to race across the moorland whilst hardly seeming to try. EMX when they arrive will blur the issue more as the noise disappears but not the damage and a EMX is a gnats chuff different in principle to a derestricted ebike