UKC

I have just been out walking the dog up shining tor in the peak and had 3 sets of mountain bikers riding at speed on the footpath....not a bridle way...2 of the parties being quite aggressive as I refused to move off the path. They did have space to get around me but we're clearly intent on just riding hard in the expectation that walkers will move out of their way.Sadly it's getting more frequent and the effects on the path are really noticeable. Why can they not stick to bridle ways/green lanes etc!!!

In reply to abr1966:

They're not mountain bikers, they're muppets on downhill bikes who just want the best Strava time for the segment.

In reply to Rigid Raider:

You may be right! I ride a mountain bike and these idiots will potentiall spoil it for other cyclists...

In reply to abr1966:

If it is a Strava section you can report the segment to Strava as hazardous.

https://strava.zendesk.com/entries/20959312-Updated-Flagging-a-Segment-as-H...

In reply to abr1966:

Nothing worse than the Steve peat wannabes for pissing people off.it seems to be the fashion to act like a knob if your riding a mountain bike these days.i live 10 mins from grenoside/wharncliffe and spend abit of time there.the xc lads are normally ok but the downhill lots seem to be ignorant and act like your stopping them winning the world championships.sometimes you just wanna say ' look mate it's Sunday,your overweight, look ridiculous and can't even ride your bike uphill so stop being a c##t.

In reply to george mc:

Strava bike segments should not exist for footpaths.

In reply to abr1966:
Is it any different though to any of the aggressive type of: pedestrian, road biker, cyclist on pavement, car driver, lorry driver, dog walker, etc,? They all expect others to get out of their way if that is their style.

Personally don't think it really is. There are always some folk who will get aggressive to others for all sorts of reasons. Fortunately most folk are not like that. The minority will give others a bad name.

On my mt bike, I always slow down/give way when necessary because as I see it we are all in multi user space, and besides I out to enjoy my ride and that is not compatible with having any argumentative confrontations.

In reply to Wsdconst:


That may be me then
I live in Grenoside so drop me a note if you fancy sharing a ride

In reply to abr1966:

I do a lot of mountain biking (or seem to have done this year) but there's no way I can condone such behaviour. While riding "cheeky" paths may be OK, or at least not as potentially antagonistic, midweek riding on footpaths at the weekend in somewhere as busy as the Peak District just annoys everyone else and doesn't do the rest of us any favours either.

About two months ago a mate was "taken out" by a mountain biker blasting across a footpath junction on Ilkley Moor. The junction was totally blind as the bracken is at full growth at this time of year. My mate suffered: "a fracture and a break to my right side clavicle. The break is nasty in that the impact has removed a strip of bone about two inches long from the front of the clavicle. The soft tissues around have been thoroughly mashed up. "

In reply to abr1966:
Aggression aside, the riding of 'rideable' footpaths is inevitable as more people get into MTBing; the average punter just won't get the arcane illogical/arbitrary rights of way system we have in England & Wales - it's no longer fit for purpose and needs a major overhaul.

Hopefully the Welsh will see the light and follow the Scottish way.

In reply to kevin stephens:

Are you sure your not one of those mean downhillers Trying to trick me ?

In reply to abr1966:

My nearby riding ( the Port hills of Christchurch) seems to have a good system to manage a busy shared use set of trails: down hill riders have right of way on specified down hill tracks, clearly signposted at both ends. On all other tracks its walkers/runners before uphill riders before downhill riders, except on the few sections of no bike trails.
The main issues are still some aggressive down hill riders, and runners with ear phones in, running down the downhill biking right of way tracks!!

In reply to damowilk:

So it's not a very good system ?

In reply to Dave the Rave:
The system seems fine, but there will always be idiots who ignore it
Also, the above exceptions are relatively few, I don't want to imagine the chaos of it less well handled given the huge number of trail users!

In reply to Wsdconst:
With only 80mm travel?

In reply to abr1966:

So, there was also space for you to step aside for a moment... Sorry, but it sound like you were pretty much trying to force a confrontation and got exactly what you wanted!

I am not excusing genuinely inconsiderate riding, but in my experience walkers do often try to force a confrontation with riders. I particularly recall one guy moaning on all the walking and biking forums a few years back about being shouted at by a couple of riders as a result of him arrogantly refusing to let riders past who were taking part in the Three Peaks cyclo cross - a one day a year event that people spend months training for, and he thought it was OK to try to force every rider he met into the rocks, potentially wrecking their wheels and ending all they had worked for. In my book such people are at least as big a nob and any Strava-chasing downhiller! I wonder if this guy would have taken the same attitude if a car-rally prevented him from using a forest track somewhere. I doubt it!

In reply to abr1966:

Another thought, I would guess that in your head you shouldn't step aside for a moment to let bikers past because it is a 'footpath' (an out of date and incongruous definition in any case) and so you had priority or something.

I wonder, say you came up behind some cyclists on a narrow country lane and they refused to let you past, instead remaining in the 'primary position' (as is recommended by the Officlal Government safe-cycling manual CycleCraft) pointing out that the Highway Code clearly states that passing drivers should give cyclists at least as much room as a car (with an illustration clearly showing that this means the driver moving over the central or lane marking, leaving a gap about as wide the width of a car) and that they rightfully did not have to cede priority until the road opened up so that you could give them at least this much room. Do you think they would be acting reasonably, or do you think that common courtesy should over-ride the exact letter of the law in such cases, and that even if they do have priority, they should 'single out' or whatever to let you past?

Is it just cyclists you have a beef with, or trail runners as well? I did the Tour of Mont Blanc in August, and ended up being caught up in the CCC / Mont Blanc Ultra-Trail events. OK, so the runners could have 'gone around' me, but I felt it was common courtesy to ensure that I stepped to one side as each runner approached, After all, doing so was 'no skin off my nose' even if there is no law saying that I had to do this. Would you have just stood there trying to force a confrontation on the basis that footpaths are there to walk on, not hold races?

In reply to Squidward Tenticles:

For your information: it is a 'footpath' withclearlyarked no cycling signs as per the peak park policy.
In answer yo your assertions, no i do not have 'beef'! But on a narrow path that i stick to because there are erosion problems i do not believe i should have to get out of the way because some mountain bikers have no intent of even slowing down to share the space. If you'd read an earlier post you'd also see that i am also a mountain biker...

In reply to Squidward Tenticles:


Go on entertain us with why it is out of date and incongruous! In all the other examples you give, both parties have a legal right to share the space you are in. A cyclist has no legal right to use a footpath.

In reply to abr1966:

Ah, but footpaths are an out of date and 'incongruous' concept, apparently. So the 'no cycling' signs are irrelevant to squidward; it would seem cyclists are entitled to go where they like.

I wonder which other legal concepts squidward ignores because it suits him to?

In reply to abr1966:

As much as I find the access situation for MTBs frustrating (we're in the same position as the ramblers in the 30s), this sort of attitude isn't going to help. We have to demonstrate that we can ride responsibly and without causing upset to other users. We have to accept that people will be concerned about the danger they perceive we pose when travelling at speed. Most of us don't expect others to jump out of our way, most of us will be polite and considerate, but as with any group of people you'll always get the tossers.

And unfortunately, that does mean even if you are riding consideratly, legally, with a grin on your face, slowing down and saying hello to every man and his dog (and I always say hello to the dogs), you get a lot of walkers who meet your friendliness with hostility.

In reply to abr1966:

On of my neighbours (an old boy in his late 60's) had a similar problem on a town path the other week. He had two Labradors, one in each hand, and the cyclist expected him to take his dogs into the road, so he could pass!?! They weren't on a cycle path and as you can probably imagine, things started to get a bit heated... Old Jim diffused the situation by putting his steel toecap through the spokes of the front wheel, telling the Pratt that he could walk it now!

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


Cyclists have no legal right to ride a footpath. In doing so, you are committing the same act of trespass as Benny Goodman and his orchestra did on Kinder, and for the same reason - the access legislation is out of date. Cyclists were given the right to ride bridle ways in the mid 60s, whilst mountain biking didn't even start until the late 70s. And even on bridleways we are merely tolerated - our views on the nature of the trail can be disregarded.

And let's not forget how often we trespass as climbers - Harpur Hill, staden, intake and most other peak limestone quarries for example

In reply to Squidward Tenticles:


I wasn't aware that laws only apply to an individual if they consider it up to date and aligned to their thinking. Have you considered a career in law? You can defend me after I take my car for a raz along some narrow, ill suited footpaths because I find the access laws silly and not right for me.


It seems unlikely that a car rally would take place on a footpath, and if it did pedestrians would be warned of it in advance and most likely kept out of the way vis legal means. So nothing like going for a walk on a footpath and almost being clarted by a trespassing cyclist.

In reply to wintertree:
What a misleading and mis-informed post! The same old nonsense trotted out again.

You are conflating criminal law with common law in an incorrect way to make your point. I think you need to brush up on the law.

It would be criminal offence to drive a car along a footpath. It is not a criminal offence to ride a bike on a footpath, not to be confused with a footway along the side of a road.

So for the avoidance of doubt: There is no law specifically prohibiting riding a bike on a footpath. End of.

If I was to ride a bike across someones land (whether on a footpath or not, it makes no difference), the landowneer could, if so minded, choose to a make it a private dispute and pursue a civil case for compensation of the harm done (damages) of me riding the bike across their land via the common law tort of trespass.

This would be no different to a walker venturing off a footpath (access land aside): in this case if the walker was with a biker, the bike would be immaterial and the walker and biker would both equally be (potentially) trespassing..

The police do not get involved in such matters and I couldn't get arrested for it.

If you encounter a bike rider on a footpath and its not your land, then under the terms of the 'law' it is none of your business, its a private matter between the potential trespasser and the landowner. So keep your nose out it, and whatever you do, don't get physical with the biker, as you might get charged with a criminal act of assault.

Riding a bike along a footpath may actually be legal expression of your right of way and may not not even be trespass. This might make your blood boil (hopefully so):

http://www.ctc.org.uk/article/campaigns-guide/cycling-on-footpath-trespass

And this might make your head explode:

http://ridelikeagirlmagazine.co.uk/2015/09/trails-for-wales-join-the-campai...

In reply to ChrisJD:
You missed the point of my comparison with a car but never mind, it gave you a chance to trot out the same old lame cry of "it's only a civil offence".

Nonsense? So trespass is okay because it's only a civil tort? You ignore the fact that *any* damage done to a surface by someone commitibg the civil tort of trespass is a criminal act.



How would you feel about me trespassing all over your garden, it would be the same old nonsense for you to complain as its only a civil tort. After all as you say there is no law forbidding it! You could let me know where it is, me and my mates will turn up and go for a walk around it. If you don't like it we'll smugly show you the CTC stuff to remind you it's not a criminal offence, just a civil one.

Back in the world where decent people respect the law, both civil and criminal, why should those with a legal right to be somewhere be inconvenienced or put at risk by those with no legal right to be there?

It tickles me pink how people who want to do what they want, where they want, reinterpret the law to suit themselves.

There are loads of places for me to cycle. I don't feel the need to extend that to every footpath. Let the walkers have their space and peace.

British law on rights of way is out of date and incongruous for many reasons. For one, whether a path was designated as being a footpath or bridleway pretty much hinged on the fact as the whether anyone had ridden a horse along it recently, and in very many cases even when evidence was presented that this was the case local authorities ignored it. I used to work in local government and rights of way was a part of my department. There were literally hundreds of paths that had been claimed as bridleways but which had been incorrectly designated as being footpaths, and the authority had effectively ignored all attempts by the British Horse Society and others to have their status upgraded, often on the grounds that the evidence they had submitted over the years had been 'lost'.

Most other countries have a much more sensible system where almost all paths are open to all non-motorised users, as is now the case in Scotland, and this does seem to go a long way to solving the problem of arrogant walkers refusing to allow other faster-moving users to pass them.

Also, as has already been pointed out, generally speaking a cyclist using a footpath is not in breach of any criminal law, only committing a technical trespass against the landowner. However, for such a trespass to have been committed the landowner would have to prove their loss, and something such as loss of privacy would be hardly applicable on a path that was also used by walkers. Also, the surface of a path is legally the responsibility of the local highways authority, so they could not claim a cyclist leaving wheelprints somehow constituted a 'loss'. Generally, cyclists are are in their rights to do the same as walkers should do on encountering 'No Tresspassing' signs, which as the Rambler's Association points out, is to just ignore them as they are effectively meaningless. Even more so given that a cyclist is likely to be using an existing path, rather than taking off across un-tracked private land.

In reply to ChrisJD:


Except that the surface of a path is the responsibility of the local highways authority, not the landowner, so the landowner would not be the one suffering from the supposed 'loss'.

In reply to Chris the Tall:


Quite so, even if you are on a bridleway or 'white road'!

In reply to abr1966:


If those problems are real and are your true concern, then surely the correct thing to do is for you to step aside for a moment, as doing this would be likely to lead less erosion or damage to vegetation that you forcing a cyclist to ride around you instead...

In reply to wintertree:
Yes nonsense. The conflation of criminal law and civil law, trying to purport a criminal action when it is not criminal, by trying to make out riding a bike on a footpath is like driving a car on a footpath (which is a criminal act).

Any damage to the surface would not be a criminal act - you would get damages via the civil case as compensation. You not not get a crimal record for it.

Ahh, the old garden trick. Try a new one!

... but what is funny, is that people trespass daily on my land by mistake (by bike, foot & car) - I live on a dead end private road with no public right of way - and that road passes through my garden! I do not rush out and charge them for wearing out my tarmac.

So how do I feel about people trespassing in my garden. Not an issue. Stuff that in your pipe!

And I expect, if you are a climber, then you've done a fair bit of trespassing your self. Or are you squeaky clean?

In reply to abr1966:

Because they are special.

"The outdoors" is becoming for of a thing these days. As a kid I just used to go out walking and cycling in the countryside far away from any honeypot area. Still do. I'm far more likely to these days to come across large groups for walkers, road cyclists or mountain bikers with loads of gear.

Parts of the countryside are creaking under the strain, and it only takes a small minority being inconsiderate to really ramp up animosity everywhere.

It's only going to get worse. The number of people is going up, and flogging them loads of expensive kit to enjoy countryside that's always been there is a very big and expanding business, and one that does not carry the cost of maintaining the countryside infrastructure it relies upon and wears down.

In reply to Chris the Tall:
Do you think landrover drivers are oppressed to because they can't drive on footpaths either?

In reply to ChrisJD:


I'll note none of your examples were there wilfully, and none of them were inconveniencing people with a right to be there.

Edit: I guess because you're okay with trespass on your garden, everyone else should be to? That's the logic you're using to support cycling on footpaths. Why not extend it to cycling everywhere?



The places I've climbed outdoors have good public access and have good landowner relations. Also when climbing I'm not inconveniencing anyone else with a clear cut right to be there.

In reply to abr1966:
do walkers still have the attitude of if there is a path i will use it? like when someone asks people to traverse their garden rather than walk straight through it. but the rambler association type march through he garden.

im no mountain biker but if i was walking the dog id move out of the way of the biker. its only a second whilst they pass.

In reply to Chris the Tall:


Unfortunately, there do seem to be a lot of walkers around who are determined to create a conflict situation, no matter how considerate one is. These are also the sort of people who will aggressively shout 'Don't you have a bell on that f****** thing?' if you don't use one, but will shout 'Don't ring your f****•* bell' at me' if you do. I often think that such people would be much happier if they simply stayed at home reading their Daily Mails!

In reply to wintertree:


There has only been any sort of 'right' to climb since the 2000 CROW act, and even then only on crags that are on open access land. This never seemed to stop people climbing prior to the year 2000 though!

In reply to the thread:
for context: i walk, climb, and as per my recent thread, am about to invest a fair amount of money on a MTB. So i've got no agenda 'anti-' any specific group

ChrisJD: thanks for the links, very interesting and much i didnt know. but, from the CTC guidance link in the article:

Cycling is legally permitted on less than a quarter (22%) of the Rights of Way network in England and Wales

CTC believes that it is acceptable for cyclists to use footpaths, provided they do so in a manner which respects the safety of other path users and their peaceful enjoyment of the outdoors, and with regard for the environment and its ecology



the context of this thread wasnt about cyclist on footpaths per se, but the aggressive attitude shown by some cyclists. although i agree that MTBers arent committing a criminal offense, even the cycling charity linked makes it clear that they should be considerate to other path users- which the ones in the OP appear not to have been

and the safety issue here is relevant, for reasons relating to basic physics. kinetic energy increases on the square of velocity; and MTBers going downhill could easily be travelling 5, or even 10 times as fast as walkers, with 25-100 times the kinetic energy as a result. on a metal framed object weighing 10-15kg on its own. that kinetic energy cant dissipate instantly, even with the best disc brakes; so collisions are more likely, where visibility is impaired, and more serious when they occur- as noted by bob at 16:58 yesterday, the consequences of this can be severe.

it does change the experience of walking a footpath to know there could be cyclists tanking round restricted visibility corners towards you; a couple of 'near misses' could leave a walker with negative attitudes towards MTBers, with 'guilt by association' thereafter.

if all cyclists abided by the CTC guidance, then i cant see it would be such a problem. as always, the antisocial minority will exercise their 'right' to do what they please, and if they bomb down footpaths like they were designated cycle tracks, then they will sour attitudes towards all MTBers as a result.

and from the CTC website, it looks like the mechanism to make cycling on a footpath a criminal offense exists; if conflict ends up becoming an issue between walkers and cyclists, then sadly this could lead to more local bylaws expressly forbidding cycling, and restricting the network to cyclists.

cheers
gregor

In reply to Squidward Tenticles:


yes, but there were many crags where climbing was not tolerated, and when the landowner decided to exercise their right to forbid it, the climbers sadly ended up losing our eg vixen tor. there are other crags where 'tolerated' access has been lost due to inconsiderate use.

In reply to ChrisJD:



Having read this, I guess "may" is the important word. The linked article http://www.ctc.org.uk/campaigning/views-and-briefings/public-footpaths-engl... which is their actual statement is much closer to saying we currently have to deal with the (what I've always thought was quite clear) bridleway/footpath split. So I'm interested to see that it is probably more complex, but while most people (walkers and cyclists - like me!) think (or thought) the law is clear, you will still find lots of walkers annoyed by cyclists coming past them on footpaths.

MTB handlebars have got so wide in recent years, maybe that's a little part of it! I can easily get through the no motorbikes gates that you find all round Sheffield on my CX - not sure it would be so easy on many modern MTBs.

In reply to wintertree:



Oh right, so your type of trespass is OK - talk about a hypocritical standpoint!

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
Could't agree more with that, I wasn't defending aggression from MTBers in anyway.

We try to avoid riding at busy periods in the Peak (I live and work here), so we tend to ride mid week, or at evening/night. If at weekends, its typically Friday evening or Sunday evening. We rarely see another soul out.

There are strong grass-roots advocacy groups in the Peak and elsewhere:

http://www.peakdistrictmtb.org/
(these guys also have a programme of trail maintenance)
http://www.ridesheffield.org.uk/
https://www.facebook.com/OpenMTB

The Eastern Moors partnership and Peak NT is pro-bike and has opened up permissive bridleways across Peak land in their care (e.g. the top of Froggatt/Curbar and through Longshaw), with plans to link up a network of ride-able/sustainable footpaths as permissive bridleways. And there is the Lady Cannings crowd funded trail on Sheffield CC land. All good ways forward.

In reply to ChrisJD:


Ridden that doing the loop that maybe you suggested to me earlier this summer - great ride. Is the top of Wharncliffe a bridleway or permissive bridleway? Was climbing there last weekend and a lot of MTBers came along. Everyone was friendly and we all said hello, but it didn't look like your classic bridleway. Walking back down to the bottom so bikes did come rocketing down which I could easily see why it would scare walkers - even though I like off road riding myself - it was still a bit unnerving.

In reply to TobyA:

Not sure about the current official status at Wharncliffe. Greno Woods is disucussed here:

http://www.ridesheffield.org.uk/projects/greno-woods/

In reply to Squidward Tenticles:

You just don't get it do you? It's very simple: a footpath with clear no cycling signage: 3 people riding bikes at speed with no intention to even slow down. This is a significantly increasing problem but you appear more concerned with refuting this. As said previously I also ride mountain bike....on tracks, roads, bridle ways, green lanes etc....of which there are plenty in this area.

In reply to ScottTalbot:


Does you neighbour solve all his problems with violence and criminal damage?

In reply to abr1966:


Off course I 'get' it. You feel that bikers shouldn't be on the path and instead of shrugging your shoulders and not letting it wind you up, you go out of your way to force a confrontation. Simple!

In reply to Squidward Tenticles:

sounds like its the bikers who are forcing a confrontation

In reply to ChrisJD:

Thanks chris- good to know that with considerate riding there are lots of other local paths I can use...

In reply to Squidward Tenticles:

Not sure if you are deliberately trolling. The 'no cyclists' sign at the start of the path is a bit of a giveaway over who was forcing the confrontation.

As per my previous post, councils appear to have powers to formally bar cyclists from footpaths. If you are not trolling, it is attitudes like yours that make this more likely. tthen the responsible riders lose out for the selfishness of the minority

In reply to ChrisJD:


I do not trespass to climb
I am not putting third parties directly at risk when climbing
The cyclist in the OP was trespassing
The cyclist in the OP was putting third parties at risk.

I've made it really simple as you seem to struggle with anything more complex.

In reply to ChrisJD:

Personally, once we move away from thinking/talking about being considerate and onto whether we have a technical right to be somewhere, we've probably lost sight of how we should be sharing the outdoors with each other.

Sometimes I do cycle where I shouldn't (on one path in particular), but I'll go as far as taking a different route if somebody looks to be in a nice reverie so as not to disturb them (genuinely).

It's possible to trespass and also be considerate, as much as it's possible to be inconsiderate while sticking to the rules*.

*If it's to do with protecting or not disturbing animals or precious habitats, I'll always stick to the rules.

In reply to wintertree:


Great, so you resort to classic internet bully tactics of calling me stupid.

In reply to ThunderCat:


If he feels threatened, and good on him I say...

I don't have any problem with cyclists using footpaths, I do it myself on a daily basis, but don't act like I have the right of way. Pedestrian's have right of way on footpaths! I don't even ask people to excuse me, I just wait until there's room to pass.

In reply to ScottTalbot:



Me too. I stick to the roads most of the way, but will use the footpaths around busy junctions (trafford roundabout makes me nervous, for example) giving as much space to pedestrians as I can (or get off and push)

I don't think it's wise or clever to damage someone elses property like that, however. I'm wondering what it actually achieved, and whether it was wise.

And if he felt threatened, I don't think trashing the guys bike was the best solution- liable to make the guy even more threatening and liable to wrap the bike around your pals head

In reply to ChrisJD:


I didn't call you stupid. I suggested that you were struggling to see my point. It could equally well be that I was not being clear enough.

So I made an effort to be abundantly clear. I did take my tone from your various comments to me, you seem to consider me so feeble minded that "your head might explode." All that "nonsense" in there probably.

It's either that or you were deliberately misinterpreting everything I said.

In reply to ScottTalbot:


Would you say the same if someone reacted with violence because they felt threatened by an inconsiderate driver, or one using a phone rather than paying full attention to the road, or by exceeding the legal limit? If so what action would you feel is most appropriate, a boot in the door panels or a 'D lock' through the side windows?

Seriously though, this does highlight the differences in attitudes that exist with regards the behaviour of cyclists as opposed to other road users, something that reflects their 'out group' status more than anything else. Cyclists are expected to be law-abiding and 'considerate' at all times (meaning going out of their way to 'keep out of the way' of all other road and path users) and it is thought to be entirely reasonable to force a confrontation with any that fail to meet this standard, and even to resort to violence.

Conversely, the same people who are quick to condemn a cyclist will see nothing wrong in their own law-breaking behaviour (as with exceeding the legal limit when driving) and would be outraged if a cyclist whose life was put at risk by them responded with confrontation, let alone violence!

In reply to Squidward Tenticles:

And yet- many (most?) of those who have expressed disapproval of the behaviour of the cyclists mentioned by the OP are cyclists themselves. So much for the idea of an 'out group' being relevant to this incident

You've not though. Despite being on a route that cyclists were explicitly barred from, and them being aggressive to a legitimate user of the route. Which gives the impression that the only difference between some cyclists and aggressive motorists who intimidate cyclists is mode of transport. When they share space with someone more vulnerable than them, they become the bullies.

You also give the impression that being 'considerate' to others is a conscious effort for you. Most others on here don't seem to find being considerate an imposition.

Cheers
Gregor

In reply to Squidward Tenticles:




At the point he felt threatened, the other individual was no longer a cyclist, as he was standing nose to nose with him. Was it wise? Probably not. Do I have any sympathy for someone in their mid to late twenty's who tries to intimidate an old man? Definitely not!

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


In my experience pedestrians are pretty much incapable of sticking to the 'pedestrian' side of a segregated cycle/pedestrian path. Following your logic, cyclists would be justified in being abusive, aggressive and even causing damage to the property of pedestrians on the 'cycle' part of such a path (as some on here have condoned in relation to damaging someone's bike) and the pedestrians would be to blame for 'forcing such a confrontation' simply by virtue of being where they shouldn't.

Personally, I think that a bit of tolerance all round, including on the part of walkers who see cyclists on a country 'footpath', is a much better solution.

In reply to ScottTalbot:


From what I have seen, most people who resort to physical violence do not genuinely feel 'threatened' by those they assault. Rather, they that feel someone has undermined their perceived position of authority or superiority in some way and are determined to reassert that position by punching the 'offending' person's face in or - or perhaps by putting a boot through their bike wheel!

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


Which is sort of the point I was making. The OP feels that they should not move over for a moment because the cyclists should not be on the path. As I pointed out, I have a feeling that the OP would take a very different position if they were driving and were held up by a cyclist or cyclists who refused to move over and allowed them to pass unless there was enough room for them to leave at least the width of a car, as the Highway Code requires. Unless the OP feels that this is fine, and also shows full respect to all other aspects of the law when driving, including in relation to driving within the speed limit at all times, then they are in no position to criticise others!


Not at all, just look back at what I said about been caught up in this years Ultra Trail Mont Blanc.

Bottom line is that, in my view, the best thing to do in a situation such as the OP describes is simply to step aside for a couple of seconds. Then again, I don't relish forcing a confrontation with minor rule breakers, as some clearly do!

In reply to Squidward Tenticles:
Well you certainly are capable of making numerous assumptions regarding my intent and motivations.....as matter of reference; I walked the dog along the Middlewood way today ( an ex rail line between bollington and marple) There are 2 ways to walk along divided by a central banking, one is a bridle way the other a path....most people don't know which is which but I must have been passed by 20 or more cyclists all of whom were courteous and polite in the spirit of sharing a space. As other people on here have stated, the issues relate to (1)...riding on footpaths and (2) aggressive cyclists. You appear to be not be prepared to acknowledge this for whatever reason.

In reply to Squidward Tenticles:


I'm a biker (and walker, climber, skier etc), and I feel that people should share paths responsibly.

Belting down narrow footpaths expecting everyone else to get out of your way is not being responsible. If you hit someone who does something irrational, it's going to hurt them. And it's damned well going to hurt you.

Have respect for other people and slow the f*ck down.

In reply to Squidward Tenticles:


It appears you may have been bullied at some point, you have my sympathies...

So let me get this right... You would step aside meekly, to avoid getting into an argument with a cyclist, who has no right even being there, let alone telling you to move. Yet you seem hell bent to get into an argument on an Internet forum!?! I'm not entirely sure what to make of that.

In reply to Squidward Tenticles:

"Also, the surface of a path is legally the responsibility of the local highways authority"

In what sense? When a path across a field is ploughed over and left that way (which happens often) the local authority may have power to instruct the path to be rolled (although they almost never do) but it's the farmer who has to do it, not the local authority.

The point of a footpath as opposed to a bridleway is that horses cause a lot of damage to soft paths. So, to a lesser extent, do bikes.

In reply to ScottTalbot:


Yes, just as I would slow down and avoid getting into an argument with a pedestrian who was walking on the 'cycle' side of a shared-use path and had no right to be there, and just as I would allow a motorist to pass me even if they really shouldn't be even trying to as there wasn't sufficient room for them to leave at least the width of a car, as per the illustration in the Highway Code...

In reply to captain paranoia:


Yes. I cycle on forest paths and canal tow paths heavily used by dog walkers and family walking parties and have never had a cross word. Live and let live. The speeds recorded by some cyclists on Strava for the tow path are completely irresponsible. If you want to ride fast, use the road.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

The no cycling sign at the start of the path says nothing over who was forcing the confrontation further along, it's a footpath, we already knew the cyclists have no formal right of way. The sign might go some way to explaining why someone on foot might feel justified in seeking a confrontation with a cyclist.

Those of us who weren't there have no way of knowing what went down or who, if it was either party, was forcing the confrontation. But your saying that doesn't help your argument with Squidward here, quite the reverse, it's somewhat suggestive that it was you.

In reply to Dogwatch:



they are just different classifications of public rights of access and nothing to do with surface texture or construction. A bridleway was originally for riding horses and driving stock, the addition of cyclists is a very recent move in the 60s.

In reply to Dogwatch:

It would be good if it were that logical, but mostly it ain't. The classification of any given route is as much historical accident as anything else, inconsistencies and anachronisms abound.

Around the eastern side of the Peak, for example, there are plenty of bridleways that are really not suitable to be ridden on when they're wet and plenty of footpaths that are much more robust. When the ground is soft it would arguably be more responsible for off-road cyclists to ride (considerately, of course, always) on the latter and avoid the former.

In reply to Squidward Tenticles:


nope, for public rights of way it is the land owners responsibility to enable access and they should not cultivate or manage the land in manner that would impede access. (with the exception of growing tall grass). Crops such as maize, oil seed rape... which have a prw running directly through, should have a path cleared. Or they can go through the lengthy and expensive route of applying to re-route a public right of way.

It is my understanding that it is legal to cycle on a bridleway and although it is NOT illegal to cycle on a FOOTPATH(PRW) only pedestrians have a right of way so that in riding a bicycle on a public footpath you would be committing trespass and the landowner could bring a case under civil law against you if he so chose. Cyclists on bridleways must give way to horse riders and pedestrians. Pushing a cycle on a footpath was a grey area in law but has now been resolved - anyone pushing a bicycle is a "foot-passenger" and is not "riding" it.

A FOOTWAY, is what pavements are generally legally classified as, they come under some 1800s highways & local councils acts and some max penalty/fixed penalty notice. A local council has an obligation to maintain FOOTWAYS, but not footpaths and bridleways, unless of course they are on council / common land, such as play grounds and sport fields.

In reply to deepsoup:

Suggestive that I caused the confrontation?

How do you work that one out... ?

Cheers

Gregor

In reply to captain paranoia:

Yes, I fully agree. However, I did get the impression that the OP had an 'issue' with cyclists using 'footpaths' at all ("Why can they not stick to bridle ways/green lanes etc!!!") and was pretty much looking to provoke a confrontation, as in my experience a lot of walkers do no matter how much courtesy one shows when riding.

OK, so perhaps he was just walking along and somebody shouted abuse at them for no more reason than they found them on the path. In which case I have every sympathy with the OP and the riders were completely in the wrong. On the other hand perhaps his refusal to move was rather more proactive and he shouted at them that he wasn't moving for them, that they shouldn't be on the path or whatever, and so triggered the rider's 'aggressive' response.

In my experience this second scenario is much more common when someone complains about meeting an 'aggressive' rider: that is, the person complaining has done something to take the confrontation to the next step. Perhaps this does not apply in the OP, but generally speaking the situation I describe does seem to be pretty much the norm. I have even been abused by walkers when using a bridleway after stopping and waiting for them to pass me. In one case someone said to me as they passed, in a very non-jokey manner, 'I passed you on the road earlier and knew that I should have run you down"!

Bottom line is that 'aggressive' confrontations usually arise because both parties do something to escalate the confrontation to the next level, and even if there are some real nobs around who are on bikes, exactly the same can be said of walkers, an unfortunate number of whom seen to take their inherent 'Daily Mail like' prejudice against cyclists with them where ever they go.

It is also the case that, generally speaking, cyclists are expected to display much higher standards of behaviour, and are more soundly condemned for failing to meet those standards, than other groups in society such as motorists who do tend to get very aggressive should anyone challenge them over their own habitual law-breaking. Similarly, you hear walkers complaining about cyclists on footpaths, saying this 'terrifies' them, and yet those same people will happily walk along the 'cycle' side of a shared-use path! All this is simply a reflection of the 'out group' status of cyclists in British society, and those attitudes also tend to permeate 'discussions' such as these.

https://thepsychologist.bps.org.uk/volume-25/edition-9/interview-vulnerable...

Bottom line is that if we all were determined to precipitate a confrontational situation every time we encountered someone 'breaking the rules' or showing us less than perfect courtesy we would be in a state of perpetual war! Much better to chill out a bit and just let the nobs that you meet in your life pass you by with the minimum of interaction possible.

In reply to ChrisJD:


So you resort to the classic 'Ill just ignore everything you said because I know I'm wrong' tactic

In reply to summo:


Nope, ultimately, it is the local highway authority that is responsible for ensuring that the surface of a path is maintained and so forth.

MAINTAINING AND PROTECTING PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY

The highway authority must:

• keep the surface of a public right of way in a fit state to be used
• make sure obstructions are removed
• maintain some bridges over natural watercourses, including farm ditches
• provide at least 25% contribution (on completion of the work to a standard the highway authority is satisfied with) to any landowners’ costs in replacing and maintaining structures
• make sure there are no notices that prevent or discourage the use of a public right of way
• add signs where a public right of way leaves metalled roads
• make sure the public’s rights to use a public right of way are protected
• make sure landowners carry out their duties, and take action if they don’t

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/public-rights-of-way-local-authority-responsibi...

In reply to Squidward Tenticles:

You keep using the phrase 'forcing the cyclist to...' If I cycle somewhere where my right to do so is in doubt (and I do/have) I am scrupulously careful and go out of my way to be considerate. I don't think expecting a walker on a path to get out of the way is part of that approach. I expect the walker not to get out of the way and expect to have to take measures to deal with that and always say thank you if they do step aside.

In reply to Squidward Tenticles:

It doesn't say that, or rather not in the text. It says to "leave as much space as you would if you were passing a car", which means the distance from the edge of the left mirror of your car when overtaking must be at least the same distance from the extreme rightmost point of the cyclist as it would be from the edge of the right hand mirror if the cyclist were a car - i.e. no squeezing past really close just because it's a bike.

Even the strictest interpretation of the text is that you should assume there is a virtual car surrounding the cyclist, with the cyclist positioned at the centreline of said car if they are in the primary position, and to pass the cyclist as if that car was present. But that involves leaving about a couple of feet more than half a car, not a full car's width.

Ideally, you leave more, of course; if feasible I pull fully into the right hand lane, which is the right thing to do. But it isn't what the Highway Code says.

In reply to Neil Williams:

Yes the text is ambiguous, probably due to pressure from the motor lobby. However, the illustration disambiguates the text in a very clear way.

https://assets.digital.cabinet-office.gov.uk/static/hc/hc_rule_163_give_vul...

Unfortunately, many motorists ignore the clear illustration shown above and instead interpret the ambiguous text "leave as much space as you would if you were passing a car" as meaning "about 6 inches, the same amount of space you would leave between your nearside wing mirror and that of a passing car when squeezing down a narrow street"...

In reply to Squidward Tenticles:

There are all sorts of possible scenarios but taking the OPs post as what occurred, I can't see how you can blame him for being provocative. He says one group of cyclists was fine and the other two pushy and aggressive. It was the second two groups he was complaining about, entirely reasonably.

Even if he had pointed out to cyclists that they shouldn't be on a footpath, that is not being aggressive - pointing out that people aren't following the rules we have, politely, is a good thing

In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:


Yes, me too!

However, I can also understand how some riders might get 'aggressive' if they meet a walker who doesn't just 'stand their ground', rather than stepping to one side for a moment, but also verbally abuses them simply for being on the path, even if they are riding in a courteous manner.

I also get a feeling that this 'aggressiveness' that some walkers report amounts to no more than the biker responding to the walker's own abuse with a quick 'Go forth and multiply' or similar!

In reply to Squidward Tenticles:

It disambiguates the text *in favour of what I was saying*, as the car is far further left when overtaking on that picture than it would be if there was a car in place of the cyclist. I wouldn't be on the same side of the line as a car when overtaking it, always over.

Further to that, cyclists often ride in pairs, as is their right. When they do, they are further right than the one riding in the secondary position shown on the picture (as would be a single cyclist riding in the primary position). If you are correct, that means it is never safe to overtake a pair of cyclists, and thus that cyclists should never ride in pairs.

The Highway Code is defined by the text, in any case, the pictures (which differ by edition) are only to assist in understanding.

Of course it is always better to give more space, as we are talking minima here.

In reply to MG:


People see others not following 'the rules' all the time - people using mobiles when driving or speeding, people dropping litter, ignoring no-smoking signs, making excessive noise etc etc. Generally speaking people choose to ignore such behaviour, not least because they know they are likely to get their face punched if they take up the issue with the perpetrator. Very many people even choose to 'turn a blind eye' if they see kids vandalising property, and so forth.

In my experience things tend to be very different with regards the behaviour of cyclists, with very many more people feeling that they are 'within their rights' to take issue with a cyclist who is not 'following the rules', even to the point of causing criminal damage to their property, as illustrated in this thread. What's more they expect cyclists to passively accept this, labelling those any who give any sort of response as being 'aggressive'. Again, this reflects the 'untermenschen' status of cyclists in British society, with other more dominant social groups, especially motorists, adopting the role of the 'ubermenschen', determined to keep these 'lower orders' in their place.

In reply to Neil Williams:


No, the Highway Code illustration makes it clear that a car should move over the lane or road centre marking when passing a cyclist. If they do this it doesn't matter if a cyclist is riding alone, in the primary position or alongside another cyclist. In all cases there is ample space to pass as long as the driver waits until it is possible to overtake as per the illustration in the 'Code.

Of course, the reality is that many drivers want to bully their way past a cyclist whist staying in the same lane, perhaps because they can't be bothered to wait until there is no oncoming traffic. Consequently, they don't like the fact that they can't do this if they meet cyclists riding two-abreast, and so have to wait a moment or two until they can pass as they are actually supposed to - as per the illustration in the 'Code.

In reply to Squidward Tenticles:

No, it doesn't. The car is not shown on the other side of the line to the cyclist. They are very clearly on the same side of the line as the cyclist.

Furthermore the text shows "at least". The car is therefore potentially giving more space than they need to for a safe minimum, because they are able to do so. (If it's clear to do so, the best thing to do is to move fully right into the other lane).


Your opinion; I happen to disagree with it. And yes, I'm a cyclist as well, but I like to be reasonable to all road users; I don't do the "war" thing. As Honda said in their advert and I like to quote here, aren't we all trying to get somewhere? The best way of using the road is for everyone to give and take to accommodate everyone.

And that includes car drivers being sensible and safe with other road users, and cyclists not causing an unnecessary obstruction.

In reply to Squidward Tenticles:


No it doesn't. You're making it up now.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
Oops, my mistake. I was mixing you up with the OP.

In reply to MG:


No, he didn't say the first group were 'fine'. He said that all the groups were riding 'at speed'. This is a wonderfully ambiguous term generally meant to imply excessive speed, even if the riders were dawdling along. After all even 1 MPH constitutes riding 'at speed'. This term is often used by those trying to overstate the threat posed by cyclists.

The OP also said "Why can they not stick to bridle ways/green lanes etc!!!". So clearly they did not think that the presence of any of the groups was 'fine'.

Overall, I just got the impression - correct or not - that the OP has an 'issue' with cyclists on 'footpaths' in general and was hoping to arouse a bit of 'Daily Mail like' indignation by posting about them!

In reply to Squidward Tenticles:
>Again, this reflects the 'untermenschen' status of cyclists in British society, with other more dominant social >groups, especially motorists, adopting the role of the 'ubermenschen', determined to keep these 'lower orders' in >their place.

Are you utterly barking mad? Asking cyclists not to ride where they shouldn't= treating them as "untermenschen"!?!

It#s quite simple. Don't ride on footpaths, and if you do, treat pedestrians with respect and expect to be asked to stop.

In reply to Rampikino:


Er.. Just look where the car is in relation to the lane marking...

https://assets.digital.cabinet-office.gov.uk/static/hc/hc_rule_163_give_vul...

In reply to Squidward Tenticles:


You might. Those who like a society that works will tend to politely ask people doing these things to stop. You are coming over an arrogant, selfish idiot who thinks rules only apply to others.. If you don't like rules, campaign for them to be changed - just ignoring them leads to chaos.

In reply to MG:


No quite. Rather, the fact that so many people feel that it is their rights to take issue with 'rule breaking' cyclists, whilst at the same time ignoring the 'rule breaking' of many other social groups, is a reflection of the 'out group' status of cyclists.

In reply to Squidward Tenticles:

Yes, partly on the left of it, same as the cyclist.

In reply to Squidward Tenticles:
You have, in my view (and I can only speak for myself), two things:

1. A penchant for the melodramatic and over-exaggeration.
2. A chip on your shoulder.

Throughout this thread you have ignored many of the key facts about the initial incident to push your own version. EG you have implied that the OP was aggressive towards the cyclists when actually he stood his ground. You have ignored the fact that the footpath was a dedicated "no cyclists" area in order to push your own opinion about the legality of cyclists on footpaths. You are also stating as fact something which is down to subjective interpretation.

Your use of "untermenchen" is ridiculous in the extreme and your hyperbole about how cyclists are treated in just not my experience.


As a motorist, a cyclist and a runner I can tell you without any hesitation that being a runner has seen me receive by far the worst, most dangerous, most inconsiderate and most frightening treatment out on the road. Being a motorist comes second to that and being a cyclist comes a very distant third.

People should simply be considerate to each other in a reasonable way. You can't measure reasonable in a precise distance that you need to leave someone else - it is a matter of interpretation.

Let me give you an example:

As a runner out on the open roads of South Cheshire I will normally run facing the oncoming traffic. I am always conscious of cars coming towards me quickly and how well they will see me and how much space they will give me. I take all the obvious precautions you can imagine (bright clothing for example). Many cars will come towards me and they will treat me very differently depending on lots of factors. But which of these three do you think I prefer?

1. Driver heads towards me, sees me late, pulls sharply across to the other side of the road over the white lines and passes me.

2. Driver heads towards me, drifts slightly towards the middle of the road and passes me with about 8 feet of clearance.

3. Driver heads towards me, slows slightly, indicates and pulls towards the middle of the road and passes me with about 6 feet of clearance.

These are all very regular scenarios - and actually number 3 is the best for me. It is the least amount of clearance, but there is communication between the driver and myself - he/she has made it clear that they have seen me and that has given me the comfort that they will pass safely as long as I hold my line. Number 2 is the most regular - the driver drifts over towards the middle and passes. Number 3 is all too regular and may give the most space but doesn't leave me feeling safe.

In reply to MG:


Tell you what, next time you see a driver on a mobile phone pull up at some lights, just tap on their window and tell them to stop it. Post on here what the response was - once you get out of hospital!

On second thoughts, perhaps you could relate your experience of doing this right now. After all you must have seen such behaviour hundreds of times and as someone who likes 'a society that works' you must have already asked drivers to refrain from using mobiles, parking inconsiderately, or people from dropping litter and so fourth countless times!

In reply to Rampikino:


Just pointing out that there are always 'two sides to a story'....

In reply to Squidward Tenticles:



I did. You said:


"No, the Highway Code illustration makes it clear that a car should move over the lane or road centre marking when passing a cyclist."

The illustration clearly shows the wheels of the car still on the same side of the white lines as the cyclist.

In reply to Squidward Tenticles:
Sure. Typically it goes something like "Would you mind not smoking here - the smoking area is over there" " Oh yes, sorry, I didn't notice"

In reply to MG:


And many such interactions take place up and down the land every day which are not done in an aggressive or confrontational way or done with any malice or aggression but are simply a reaffirming of what is or is not acceptable. However, Mr Tenticles is fond of the melodrama or assumes that aggression will be the only outcome.

In reply to abr1966:

Interesting topic, obviously some give and take is required by both sides, but overall I believe cyclists should "give way" to walkers on a footpath, and if that means slowing right up, even stopping, so be it.

Another plea here from an "older" walker. A lot of cyclists don't allow for the fact that some walkers may be hard of hearing. I am, mainly due to a recurring build up of wax, which means I just don't hear cyclists approaching from behind. This also applies on mixed walking/cycle tracks.

I know a lot of cyclists may think it nerdish to use a bell, but here is a plea from me, and I'm sure from others in a similar position to me.

Please get a bell, and USE it well in advance of passing! You won't believe how much it helps people with reduced hearing. If I hear one I will move over to one side, but to be passed fast without warning sometimes gives me a real fright. If I don't hear it then please slow right up and shout.

Sharing the TGO is all about consideration by all.

In reply to Rampikino:

It's the increased reluctance to 'command what is right and forbid the wrong' (i.e. justifiably meddling in the business of others) that has led us to a position where the individual is king, where we have no responsibility to others in society and anyone who tries to correct us in this is given the 'universal eff-off response'. Dropping litter? Eff-off, I pay my taxes. Driving dangerously? Eff-off and get out of my way. Making noise in the quiet carriage? Eff-off granddad. etc etc etc. People can exist in their own self-important bubble where their behaviour is justified because......well.....because they're doing it, so eff-off!

For the record I've asked people not to smoke, I've chastised people for dropping litter, asked people politely to deal with their own litter, or just picked up other people's litter in front of them... all with mixed results, because there are all sorts of people. Social interactions are complex and often based on very subtle power relationships. I'm quite big and can look quite scary, but I'm very polite, so people make very subtle judgements as to how to respond: yeah, sorry mate, I was just going to put it in the bin; eff-off, I pay my taxes (I have literally been told this!); and everything in between. I'm also looking at clues, subtle or obvious, which will inform my decision whether to intervene or not. I'm not interested in getting attacked by someone who looks likely to resort to violence, but I have no problem in 'shaming' someone who should know better into behaving more considerately. I think this is relevant to the OP in that we all pick our battles, and there is no harm in calling out others in their wrong-doing if we feel strongly about it, and if there's a benefit to society for doing so. Shaming mtbrs who are making footpaths dangerous for other users is likely to get the 'eff-off' response at the time, but may provoke thought at a later time.

In reply to Squidward Tenticles:


Nope, it isn't a local authority(parish/district) deal with the farmers/landowners who have obligation, but it isn't the local authority that has to fund or carry out the works. I think you are confusing things when a council might force a landowner to carry out works, rather than the council actually doing the work themselves. The only reason I know this is from my time as a town councillor, we had masses of common land leased out, common land we managed and masses of bridleways, PRW and non public foot paths.

I think you are confusing PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY(path across a privately owned piece of land) and FOOTWAY (pavement), they are very different.

Landowner carries out the work, local authority can enforce.

As above.

That's because they are highways signs, which comes under country councils, not parish or district, or landowners.

yes, the only correct point you've made.

In reply to Trangia:

Agree with most of what you say, a bit of consideration and friendliness goes a long way towards improving everyone's day.

However I have a disagree on the issue of bells on MTBs. It's not that it's nerdish, more that they are often a pain to use - when you see a walker most of us hit the brakes, second thought is to change gear, so your fingers and thumbs are fully occupied ! And not only is it easier to shout, it's also friendlier. A bell, like a car horn, says "get out of my way", whereas "Cyclist, hello" makes no such demand, it's letting you know I'm here and open to a conversation.

Of course you still get the grumpy walkers who yell "where's your bell" no matter how friendly and polite you are

In reply to Chris the Tall:

As a regular towpath user, I and ( I think from sleazing around on canal forums) other boaters find a bell less in your face than a shout, though it's worth remembering that if there's an engine running and you're wrestling a few tonnes of boat with ropes, that any warning might not be heard or overtly responded to. It may take a little while for the path to clear and the biker might need to wait for a moment or two, for which we'll be grateful. Towpaths are tricky because there isn't a one rule fits all approach. Some have been improved by C&RT or sustrans etc, others are in very poor condition and the legal status is even more confusing - some footpath, some bridleway, some no official rights at all.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

I've cleverly "tuned" my rear brake to let out a squeal so loud that even the deaf look up to see what the racket is. They then can't help but notice my bright red half-embarrassed/half-asphyxiated face which normally elicits enough sympathy that even the angriest of ramblers steps aside rather than watch me die. It's a system.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

I understand where you are coming from and agree that a bit of friendly chat will go a long way, but from my hearing point of view a "ting, ting" gives a nice early warning even before a shouted voice. I don't regard a bell as aggressive, it's exactly what I want to hear and am listening out for because it's just the right pitch, more so than a voice which can make you jump. Once I've heard the bell and looked round I can then enter into some friendly banter.

In reply to toad:

Yep, bells might work better on towpaths and similar flat, smooth shared used paths, but I was taking about mountain biking. One other advantage of using your voice is that you can adjust the volume to suit the situation !

But all I trying to do is explain why most MTBers don't use bells - it's not arrogance or fashion, it's practicality.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Some options here:

https://www.eta.co.uk/2012/12/20/the-loudest-bicycles-horns-that-blast-beep...

The one at the bottom might be heard by even Trangia

In reply to ChrisJD:

The idea is to pass walkers safely and in a friendly manner, not to kill them with a heart attack!

In reply to Trangia:


Does that mean I should stop using a taser as my warning?

In reply to Trangia:


The problem is opinions seem to vary on this. Some take a bell as an affront to them and others not.
Similar to horses. Speaking to horsie types opinions vary wildly on whether a bell or voice is less likely to panic the horse.

In reply to Trangia:

It would probably knock you right off the path

Perfect for a Dom Jolly type moment.

In reply to Trangia:

Cyclists have to give way to wlakers and horse-riders by law 1968 Countryside Act (and obvioulsy shouldn't be on a footpath!)

Riding of pedal bicycles on bridleways..


(1)Any member of the public shall have, as a right of way, the right to ride a bicycle, [F1not being a mechanically propelled vehicle], on any bridleway, but in exercising that right cyclists shall give way to pedestrians and persons on horseback.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Does it? I find a bell sounds so much less aggressive than a car horn, more of a "hello, I'm here" than "get out of my way". If I want a "get out of my way" when someone does something really stupid such as lets a dog on one of those extending leads run in front of me on a road or cycle path, I shout it.

Indeed, I've said before I think road rage may be reduced if cars had a less aggressive sounding horn (keeping the aggressive one for real emergencies). A bit like Manchester trams make a friendly "toot" to warn of their approach, but if you're in the way and the brakes go on it's more of a loud squeal.

I'd thought saying "excuse me" was more polite but I found people prefer the bike bell.

In reply to Trangia:

You can't imagine how satisfying it can be to make somebody jump after they've not looked left or right and stepped in front of you to cross the road.

I don't usually use my 115db air horn, and the satisfaction comes from a negative place, you could say, but it's so annoying that people often don't use their necks before stepping into the road.

http://www.sjscycles.co.uk/samui-air-zound-3-rechargeable-horn-prod3/

It's not that difficult to turn your head!

I'm 35 going on 'grumpy old man'.

In reply to abr1966:

Maybe you need to act like Ronnie Pickering.......
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=625543

In reply to sbc_10:

That's Ronnie f***ing Pickering to you, pal!

In reply to Ridge:

Ronnie Pickering seems like a man in search of somewhere to prove his manhood.

I wouldn't ride a moped in front of anybody like that driving behind me, you don't know what people might do while behind the wheel.

In reply to Rampikino:



I find his way of putting things one which might rub certain people up the wrong way, but it was interesting how I had some youth ask me if I had insurance and paid road tax while he was drunk and walking along on Saturday while I cycles past him. What the heck is that all about?

I couldn't begin to guess on the general status of cyclists in UK society, but I can easily see why some people think cyclists have a lowly place if they have enough of that kind of think happening to them, which could be what happened to 'Squidward Tentacles' or whatever is user name is.

My computer teacher a few years ago had a thing about cyclists not paying to use the road, it's 'possible' that there are a lot of people who think the same to the surprise of some on this thread, since reasonable people generally tend to think most other people are.

In reply to Trangia:

Nice bell has been purchased and fitted to my MTB.

Be interesting to see if I get moaned at for using it!

In reply to abr1966:

Guys I am brand new to this website and this argument pushed me to join, I am a hiker/climber with two border collies and I regularly encounter mountain bike riders, the vast majority of guys or gals on bikes are not a problem to me if they let me know they are coming by either bell or a shout, I call my dogs and let them by and the majority of the time I get a thank you and a how are you, a lot of bikers even stop to let me bye and end up fussing the dogs and having a chat. What grates on me are the ones who seem to think its solely for their own use and expect you to hear them coming and move instantly without even a thanks mate when you do, the majority of the time I cannot hear a bike coming due to background noises wind etc ,and when they have to slow down I get a aggressive look which is then given back in spades, do not get me wrong I have met many ignorant hikers and fell runners who seem to think its their own private space its NOT its for all of us and all it takes IS a few manners and we can all have a good day.

In reply to shaun4444d:

So as in ALL areas of life there's considerate people and there's a few idiots.

In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:

Hooray, thread finished.

In reply to elsewhere:


I find saying 'Hello there' works well at being friendly and alerting people to the fact I'm behind them.

In reply to ChrisJD:

You will get moaned at. You'll also get people saying thank you. It's hard to know which way the balance swings! You'll startle people and make them jump and it's unnerving. However, when I get the "you made me jump" in an offended or upset tone I tend to slow to walking pace and have a relaxed light hearted conversation about it. I figure it's worth taking time out from the ride to take a human approach and laughing with people about the damned if I do, damned if I don't question.

In reply to AlisonSmiles:

I feel that most people that are out for a walk have no idea what a bell noise means, and it feels very impersonal to me. I can understand its use in a city though.

I do get annoyed by silent mountain bikers overtaking, whether I am on foot or on a bike myself. I use and have trained my kids to use phrases like "Hello", "Passing on your left, if that's ok", "Hello horse", "Thanks" etc. I think this is both the polite and safe way to do it?

In reply to RobertHepburn:



One the frequent arguments used against allowing greater MTB access is that "If we let bikes in, the motorbikes and 4x4s will follow". So it's really useful to show we are different - it's difficult to have a chat with a motorbiker - especially if they are creating the usual racket - and virtually impossible with someone in a car. But cyclists can do themselves a favour by being overtly friendly and chatty, and making it clear we are looking to enjoy the scenery etc as much as the walkers.

In reply to RobertHepburn:


Might be a cultural thing - with our Redway system a bell is well understood in Milton Keynes. While bell use did die out for a while, I think it is now clearly associated to cycling. And I don't want a personal relationship between someone wishing to pass me and myself (or vice versa), I just want it to occur as expediously and safely (to both parties) as possible.


I'm not a mountain biker, more a utility cyclist, but I tend to use the bell from a distance (and again a bit closer if it seems they didn't hear) and say thanks as I pass. That's what I would hope others would do to me. If they look confused on ringing the bell, I'll tend to shout out the side I intend to pass on and slow down, but if not the bell will suffice. Shouting sounds aggressive, the bell (unlike a car horn) doesn't.

In reply to RobertHepburn:

I do that, slow right down so I have long enough to get a full sentence out. I tend to include the word bike though, and a please! I use the bell more if I'm with other cyclists, because people tend to look when they hear the bell and can see it's not just one person coming through, and don't spread out again after one pass.

I don't really like using it because I think it gets interpreted sometimes as an imperious get out of my way, rather than a hey, just letting you know I'm here kind of sound. However, it's no win because I get quite a few grumpy, don't you have a bell kind of comments too. I guess some people out for a walk aren't looking for conversation!

In reply to Chris the Tall:


Yes, I completely agree.

In reply to Neil Williams:

Lol at how you've equated saying things like 'Hello, nice day' with having a personal relationship.

In reply to abr1966:

This kind of statement really annoys me, the - 'i was in the right, they were in the wrong, so i stuck to my rights and an incident/confrontation occured and now im going to rant about it!'

use your bloody common sense and get out of the way, its simple self preservation - fast moving object traveling my way, ill move out of its way... if i dont it'll hurt!

its just the same as when a road cyclist sticks to the correct road position and gets hit by a vehicle and then rants about it after, instead of using common sense and avoiding the incident in the first place.

stepping aside would cause you no more than a seconds inconvenience, and cause no more errosion than you are already causing.

In reply to Webster:


Sometimes being in the correct position is safer, sometimes it isn't. Usually it is as it forces drivers to take notice of you and hopefully think about the manoeuvre that they are intending to make. Of course should an accident occur then the cyclist will come off worse. Never an easy call: do you "inconvenience" the driver behind for a few seconds so that you are safe or do you act like you don't belong there?

There's a blind bend (building in the line of sight so simply not possible to see round it) on my commute home: if I stick close to the side of the road (which happens to be a very rough cut-up surface) then drivers will try and sneak past so I stick in the middle of the lane for a few tens of metres before the bend then cut back to the side when I see it's safe. I do thank those drivers who are patient and wait though so it's not all "me, me, me". I've no intention of holding people up but equally I've no desire to encourage their bad driving.

In reply to Webster:

It's a valid thing to feel disappointed at people who don't do the right thing I'd have thought though?

In reply to Webster:

I suggest you read the thread....amd my further posts. I maintain that there are times to stand onez ground and if there is a confrontation that's the vonsequence. Not all confrontations lead to poor outcomes, some can be useful...

In reply to Timmd:


yep, but my statement kinda stands alone from that.

But i would have had more sympathy if the op said something along the lines of " aggressive cyclists forced me off the path" rather than "cyclist got aggresive because i didnt step out of their way" though.

In reply to abr1966:

People still don't be getting the 'give way to pedestrians and horses' bit.

Keep that thought in mind and if they let you pass remember they're doing you a favour!

I was in England yesterday, and became a (largely silent) participant in a debate as to where you could ride your bike.

A Sustrans route was on what was sort of a farm track dual carriageway in a colliery site, passing a restored bing. Apparantly one side was for bikes, the other for everyone else. Somebody asked me if I knew I was on the right side, then moving to a debate with some dog walkers. There was no signage.

I suggested that it does not matter and that I had a responsibility to avoid other users, something that we are quite good at in the land to the west, without bridleways . Quite an eye opener to another mindset.

In reply to AlisonSmiles:


This is actually the main reason I put it on. Something else to chat about with other trail users.

Not had to use it yet - was at trail centres over weekend, and I just shout 'coming thru'!. {in the nicest possible way)