 You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Well over the years I've had many odd/funny/weird encounters whilst out on the bike. Being chased by a bull on a bridleway in 1996 sticks in the mind, as does the time I rode over a squirrel on a night ride.
...but today's can probably be chalked up as the most ironic 😕
I was harangued by a guy driving a tree-felling machine whilst [b]pushing[/b] my bike along a footpath. When I pointed out that a) I was pushing my bike, and b) even if I had wanted to ride my bike I couldn't as he'd churned up the footpath so badly with his tractor (2 foot deep water & clay filled tracks anyone?) that it was basically impassable. He didn't take this kindly and got out of his cab and tried to block my path.
Luckily the mud was so thick he got stuck, so I beat a hasty retreat 😆
I'm going to ring the council tomorrow about the destruction of the footpath - but I suspect sod all will be done about it.
Surprised no one has pulled you up on this already but technically you'd have to carry your bike on a footpath. Guy is probably an idiot anyway and his forestry vehicle, as all forest vehicles, causes untold carnage when they go out into the woods in winter.
Not actually true - it's not even illegal to ride on a rural footpath, only frowned upon. A council officer or landowner can ask you to leave by the nearest/shortest route. Also once you dismount from a bicycle you are in the eyes of the law a pedestrian, so wheeling a bike is the same as wheeling a pram or trolley.
Anyway the thing I found so galling was the destruction of the ground by his massive machine.
If the access to a piece of managed woodland is via a footpath, are they still allowed to drive on it?
he's probably still stuck there
that'll learn him
I came across a similar scene of destruction on my last visit to my favourite bit of local singletrack and what an amazing bit of singletrack it used to be. Rocky, rooty and fast but not too technical it was great.
Contractors bought in by the council had bulldozed a track up through the woodland making a huge mess. Much as this was gutting it was the reply I got from the council to my email that was the odd bit.
'The track you see is to allow the contractors to bring in materials to build the path'
'the finished path will be 1.2 metres wide and will follow the course of the old path'
It all sounds a bit dodgy to me. I know from experience that it doesn't take that much carnage to maintain a path. If they'd got some professionals in it would be done properly without the destruction. I think they just hired the cheapest local cowboys to do it.
mtbfix - Member
Surprised no one has pulled you up on this already but technically you'd have to carry your bike on a footpath.
Not true, there is even a case law on it. Not sure where this urban legend came from that you have to carry the bike. Make no sense.
If he is a contractor you should also complain about his threatening behaviour.
http://www.bikeforall.net/content/cycling_and_the_law.php
'CARRY THAT BIKE!'
Don't fall for the piffle that you have to carry a bicycle when on a footway or pedestrian crossing. Anyone pushing a bicycle is a "foot-passenger" (Crank v Brooks [1980] RTR 441) and is not "riding" it (Selby). In his judgment in the Court of Appeal in Crank v Brooks, Waller LJ said: "In my judgment a person who is walking across a pedestrian crossing pushing a bicycle, having started on the pavement on one side on her feet and not on the bicycle, and going across pushing the bicycle with both feet on the ground so to speak is clearly a 'foot passenger'. If for example she had been using it as a scooter by having one foot on the pedal and pushing herself along, she would not have been a 'foot passenger'. But the fact that she had the bicycle in her hand and was walking does not create any difference from a case where she is walking without a bicycle in her hand."