UKC

Seen today (Sat 28 Nov 2020, about 1330) a group of cyclists (more than 6 adults, probably not within covid19 requirements) cycling on a footpath, near Settle above Stackhouse going towards Feizor.  Irrespective of the current debate on whether cyclists should be permitted on footpaths, cycling currently isn’t permitted on footpaths.  There are plenty of bridleways around, where cycling is permitted.  It makes a right mess and ground is already muddy and soft. If this happens to be you, or you know who it was: please play fair for the footpaths and covid.

Location:
https://maps.northyorks.gov.uk/connect/analyst/mobile/#/main?mapcfg=Out_and...

Photos: https://photos.app.goo.gl/t3nBnpmW4wspp2pJ9

Oh no, a group of people outdoors enjoying themselves. Quick, call the police (or, alternatively, take a photo and create a UKC thread about it).

Footpaths are for doing things on foot.  There are plenty of places you can cycle if you want to do that.

I mean there’s not that’s half the issue. They could in theory have permission from the land owner you can drive a lorry down a footpath if the owner says its okay, well you can try.

cycling on sloppy grounds bad form regardless of access rights though. 

Won't someone think of the children?!?!

They could in theory have had permission, but I bet they didn't.

One thing I don't understand is why cyclists defend the bad behaviour of other cyclists.  I am a cyclist (mostly as a mode of transport) and bad behaviour of other cyclists actually angers me, because it damages the reputation of all cyclists.  I certainly will not defend it.

Would you not be better posting this on a cycling forum.

Erm, the map link you’ve posted shows the section as a purple AND a green line. 
so doesn’t that make it a bridleway, and hence legitimate for cyclists to access?

No, and this can be seen clearly from the OS map, it's a short dashed line, not a long dashed line.

Think you’re probably right. 
But the link the OP has posted seems to show purple and green lines (FP and BW according to the key). 

You may then be horrified to learn that there is currently a petition being touted around on mountain biking forums to persuade the government to allow cycling on footpaths.

I didn't sign it because I have doubts about it but I reserve the right to get angry with walkers who invade trails designed for mountain bikers which also happens quite frequently.

Al

apologies for the apparent inaccuracy of the NYCC mapping or zooming.

The point in question is SD 8097 6594 and it's definitely a footpath at that point (it merges with a bridleway further towards Feizor)

Thanks for clarifying. 
 

fair play then. 

I don't like the photograph name and shame sh*t. What does it actually achieve? They're not wearing a club jersey anyone could make a complaint to.

For some reason (Until I read the OP properly....) I expected to see pics of a lycra clad peleton hooning it along a tarmac path expecting everyone to jump out the way. As a roadie this sort of thing properly fecks me off.

Were they being dicks? Were they expecting pedestrians to give them priority? Were they using walkers as slalom poles? Sure it's plain moronic by the looks of the pictures and how soft the ground is but come on....

Most amusing. Bit like those nasty climbers wanting to climb on someone else's land. 

Actually I do to some extent disapprove as I doubt every legal RoW in the country has been ridden to boredom by those riders. 

And yet you still walked up there?

But still poor show by the cyclists on a weekend, in a large group and with poor conditions under tyre. 

If it's any consolation, the footpaths in Hertfordshire have more or less been taken over as a network of cycle tracks. This is not so bad when the ground in really hard (as it was in the spring and summer) but it is doing the usual damage in the current muddy conditions. Cycling on footpaths isn't actually illegal, but it is trespassing.

Cyclists who ride on pavements at dusk (because they have no lights) and force pedestrians into the road are definitely breaking the law though.

Same here. I drive a car but don't automatically defend people churning up green lanes or smashing up drystone walls in 4 x4 s.

I have a dog but don't look at badger baiters or people involved in dog fighting and think "Oh, they're just enjoying themselves, who made you the fun police?"

As far as I understand, the law that created footpaths predates bicycles, and there has been no relevant case law in England. This means it is not illegal to cycle on footpaths, and you can assert your right of way. In Scotland, which has a similar law but a different legal system, case law means that a bicycle is an "aid to a pedestrian" and thus legal. I think no case has been brought in England because it would probably get the same result.

But there is a bigger picture. None of our rights if way make much sense - many areas barely have any, there are footpaths along flat land rover tracks and bridleways that almost go down cliffs and through swamps. What I think we want is a network that helps everyone get out and exercise and enjoy the countryside away from the dangers of cars, and without having to drive. What we have at the moment often means you have to choose between a dangerous road or a footpath.

I agree for covid reasons they should be in twos - a buddy helps keep you safe if you crash etc, but they are certainly not the only ones breaking the rules.

P.S. I wasn't in the group you saw as I live south of London

When I walk on muddy paths, I exert 60kg down through the half a foot sq of my shoe once every 2ft or so. On a bike you'd exert 60kg + bike weight through a quarter foot sq of tyre contact on a constant basis, unless you do a wheelie. It's quite simple maths to see cycling creates more wear and tear on soft ground per user. That's without taking in to account locking breaks and churning it up ever more. Also as a walker you have the ability to be more accurate and hop between rocks, reducing wear. 

I'm not against cyclists using footpaths, I think there's room for expansion of the network, but only on hard wearing surfaces. 

Cyclists shouldn’t be on footpaths (I’m also a mountain biker, a hiker, a runner and a climber) but why not ban overweight people from walking, and walkers with rucksacks, and walkers with babies, and dog walkers, and the limit the number of walkers (there are more of them than cyclists) and anyone who wants to walk in damp conditions or on well used paths?  What about climbers with heavy racks or bouldering pads?

Many of us use the outdoors in many ways and we all need to work together on how to do that in a sustainable manner, not by vilifying one group over another.

Actually you need to be careful here. Yes, it's not illegal, but at the same time you do not have any explicit right of way (that trumps the landowner's rights). If they ask you to leave (by the most direct route) and you refuse (e.g., by asserting some 'right') then you are committing aggravated trespass which most definitely is an offense (aka 'illegal') in England. You should also bear in mind that even if you haven't been asked to leave (not been seen, for instance) you are still - at least in principle - liable for any damage to the landowner's property (e.g., the path he maintains). Walkers have an explicit right to use that path (in a reasonable way) so don't carry that liability. It's no different (in law) than someone lobbing a brick through your window - they are liable for the cost you incur repairing the damage.

Is the landowner likely to pursue you for costs of repairing a churned up path? No, of course not, it's just not worth their time (even if they could identify you and link your passing with some specific damage in a way that would stand up in court). So 'ride your luck' all you like, but don't pretend that the law is on your side.

That's not quite right. For a trespass to occur the person trespassed against must be able to demonstrate some sort of loss. This means that on a right of way open to walkers a loss of privacy could not really be claimed. Also, the surface of a right of way is the responsibility of the local highways authority, not the landowner. Naturally, if someone were to ride (or walk) through a field of standing corn where there was no right of way, then the farmer/ landowner would be in a legitimate position to make a claim.

Those cyclists were probably just following the same advice given to walkers regarding 'trespass' by The Rambler's Association - that is don't worry too much about it and just be prepared to turn back if challenged by a person in a position to object, such as the landowner.

Another issue is that many 'footpaths' were, historically, bridleways and even white roads, but were subsequently downgraded due to the influence of farming and landowning interests when the supposedly 'definitive' maps were first drawn up. Most short sections of 'footpath' that run between bridleways fall into this category.

It is also worth remembering that cycling on  country footpath is not an offence under the various highways acts - those regulations only apply to footways that run alongside a road.

Looks like there was a load of mud there before the riders went past, only difference was that afterwards there was a load of mud with a few wheel prints in it it. No different to what would have happened had a group walked through it, or the farmer driven his 4x4 or quadbike that way - which is most probably the reason the path is worn in the first place, especially given that you have chosen to take your pictures right by the gate. 

They are acting like a bunch of dickheads. Not because they are 'cyclists' but because they are dickheads.

You're correct. I was more commenting on the previous posters statement that cyclist have some sort of legal 'right of way' on a footpath, which is clearly wrong and misleading.

And this can be fixed by complaining about cyclists on a climbing forum?

This nicely illustrates the ridiculously arbitrary nature of the designations.

A few K up the track would have been acceptable but at that point, pass the pitchforks!

Through the 'bottleneck' of a field gate used by farm vehicles and livestock?  Say it ain't so!

The cyclists do look like they're being dicks to be fair (more on account of the 'ignoring the lockdown' thing than owt else), but the OP all the more so with this 'name and shame' nonsense.  Next time he does this maybe he should try to catch the culprits in the background of a selfie so we can see everyone who was there on the day behaving like a nob.

That's not going to happen while the law appears to give one user group precedence over the others or while the path designations don't reflect the suitability of the path for different users.

It does seem to be happening a bit around here.
(Hat tip to 'Ride Sheffield' who deserve some of the credit for that.)

I quite agree about the path designations though.  Personally (as a pragmatic non-cyclist), I'd much rather see a mountain bike on a well-drained firm footpath than axle deep in the mud on a waterlogged bridleway.

I was out in the woods on the opposite side of town to usual for a change yesterday.  Despite the dismal weather I saw dog walkers, runners, mountain bikers, more leisurely cyclists and horse riders - all rubbing along quite happily together, being nice and saying hi.

No climbers though - if there were maybe I should have tried to sneak up and get a photo of them on the soggy rock so I could get up on my high horse and start a thread about them on here.

Designation of BWs and FPs has never been about 'suitability' - they are purely historical/social designations. Suitability would have to be assessed on a path-by-path basis and realistically that's never going to happen (except in a few rare isolated cases). Although I can think think of FPs that are more suitable for cycling than some BWs, I can see how the current situation has pragmatically arisen. Perhaps I might have preferred for the law to give a RoW to cyclists on FPs, but I suspect that that would have caused more issues (in the high population density England) for more people than the way it is now.

You’ll note that my point was balancing the right of access with potential to cause damage. Everyone (babies and dogs included) has the right to traverse a footpath on foot, if we start adding in bikes then the overall weight and force going through it increases unnecessarily. It’s not about there being more walkers than cyclists, or the individual weight of a particular user - as I said, everyone has a right to use it and that should not change, but the potential for damage can be limited. Indeed the potential for damage is already limited, if everyone sticks to the rules.

A 'right of way' that joins two villages in virtually a straight line and passes through gates along the way, had obviously been the main link between the two communities for eons.

Somehow when the designation of the public rights of way was done in the 20th century, the parish council obviously claimed that throughout history, no one had ever ridden a horse or pulled a cart along that route. Clearly impossible to establish. More likely the local landowner (who probably sat on the parish council) said he didn't want full access over his land.

This is clearly a route whose designation needs challenging by the Ramblers or Horse Society during the present consultation, especially as the first part is already a bridleway.

All the rules do is focus users and therefore environmental pressure on certain routes which may or may not be suitable. They might save path A from erosion but increase it on path B. Or path A might be far more suitable for shared use but the designations force more users onto fragile path B. It's a mess.

See here: https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/off_belay/mountain_biking_on_footpaths-72...

I found its not worth the argument about cycling on muddy and soft ground. Protagonists tend only to look in places where they are likely to find supporting evidence and don’t look to find contrary information.

Wear and tear rates. 

Thought I would see if there are any articles on scientific research into wear and tear on land. Linked to 2 below.

https://www.mbr.co.uk/news/research-reveals-walkers-do-more-damage-to-trail...

https://www.cyclinguk.org/sites/default/files/document/migrated/article/tra...

Both articles are from cycling orientated sites but the research was independent. It would seem bicycles do not cause as much erosion as previously thought.

Using the outdoors be it cycling, horse riding or on foot will cause erosion, especially if used when the ground is sodden. Walking around Kinder Scout used to be an absolute nightmare unless in a drought or deep mid-winter. (Memories)

Sensible choice of routes observing weather and conditions by all users would be better for the land. The first lockdown enabled a lot of my local paths to really come back into green conditions.

There are many, many examples in England where a path can be a bridleway and then just become a footpath.

Bridleway from Strines reservoir heading west to Ladybower becomes a footpath at the Yorkshire/Derbyshire border. Many paths would have been historically used by people, walking and on horses, as the simplest way to another destination. It is just that one authority, in this case Derbyshire, has not  passed the appropriate authorisation to make it a bridleway.

Indeed, which is why I noted above that I agree there is room for expansion of the cycle network to include some footpaths where the surface is suitable. How this would be achieved is beyond me as it’d be a hugely expensive exercise in time and effort, and getting landowners on board. 

Oh yes, how silly of me to think that walkers would ever cause erosion.  They all just hop rock to rock, simples; like little magical fairies skipping across the moorland.

FFS.

I do, where possible. It’s not a difficult concept to grasp. As I said, it’s not about not causing erosion, it’s about limiting it as much as possible but you keep on being childish. 

The problem with that is that in our local forest the mountain bikers have "designed" a lot of their trails on lines that were regularly used by walkers before the mountain biking  was a thing.

Undoubtedly, I was simply pointing out that it does cut both ways. I should have prefixed with a

Al

I agree but the idealist in me would like to see all stakeholders work together on some sort of more balanced outcome in future.

I wasn’t suggesting bikes be allowed on footpaths.  I don’t think they should - although I would like to see some footpaths reclassified as bridleways.

My main point was to highlight that I disagreed with your point about wear and tear on the ground.  The fact that a rider and bike weighs more than one person, does not prove that mountain bikers do more damage.  There are so many other factors to consider.

The entire UK land access needs to move away from the victorian era into the 21st century. It stems from the public being granted access across the Lord's fields to likely walk to work in some part of that estate. Driving horses, sheep, cattle, wagons etc to market. Or the so called green lanes and 4x4s. We have just transferred the rules for people and horses to bikes & cars, and completely ignored the fact the world has changed massively in the last 100 years. 

There are indeed other factors to consider, which is why I also said that I’d allow bikes on footpaths (ie. the reclassification of them) where the surface was suitable. We’re very much in agreement on the whole, I think

Of course, on hard wearing ground the difference in wear will be negligible. However as an example I was at Bridestones the other day, dedicated access land under CRoW and reasonably popular for it. Despite this, even the most frequented paths are well vegetated and only down to mud in quite literally just a few metres worth in a handful of spots. Whilst there, I watched two mountain bikers throw their bikes over the kissing gate, completely ignoring the ‘no cycling’ signs and then go on to leave an impression in the ground that you could have followed from said gate to the one they left through. This is no exaggeration. It wasn’t a dirty great big brown muddy mark, but if the same amount of cyclists did this as walkers it clearly would soon become one. Anecdotal as it may be. 

Several people on this thread are talking about the legality (or otherwise) of cycling on footpaths. Have you considered, Al, whether or not those walkers on these bike trails have a legal right to walk on them? As you say, it cuts both ways. On my OS map Grizedale Forest is all shown as CRoW land. That means pedestrians have a legal right to be walking anywhere, any time except for the statutory 28 days (?) when the FC close parts for felling or car rallies etc. Unless I'm mistaken there is no legally exclusive cycling access even to dedicated trails.

Said the man who came to the internet to throw his toys out the pram...

I didn’t throw anything anywhere. I’ve explained my thoughts, belief and rationale behind them. It might be wrong, I’m happy to be corrected. I’ve agreed that cycling should be allowed on some footpaths if it’s a suitable surface, which is definitely progress over the ‘keep off’ mantra. If anyone’s thrown toys out of the pram it’s the ‘wah wah I want to cycle where I want whenever I want’ lot  

I know people want to get fixated about bikes and paths, but surely here and now it's the fact there is a crowd of them that's the issue.

Of course but the ones I'm talking about are at dedicated bike  trail centres which happen to be on Forestry Commission land so not exclusive but they are sign posted as bike trails.

Al

It like covid moaners, the "I went to the shops today and I was shocked at how busy it was, folk are just ignoring the advice and not staying at home!"

An overhaul is needed, plan for the future, in 2040 who will need to travel where, why and by what means. 

Why you snitching for though? 
.....and on a completely irrelevant forum. Dry. 

Thing no one seems to have mentioned is some if not all of these people are on e-bikes and they really are a different breed in my experience to human powered cyclists. I'm a mtb rider and e-bike riders are giving all people on bikes a bad name, speeding, riding in huge groups, having their saddles too low etc. 

Well actually you total knobhead, I'll back up oldhamphil, some of us walkers do try our best not to trash the terrain we're walking over.

I'm sure they do, as do a great number of mountain bikers, but the idea that walkers do this by leaping nimbly between rocks is rather laughable.

Is there anywhere you can cycle? You’re a wanker for cycling on a road and a wanker for cycling off-road? 

Dave's never had the pleasure of bouncing along the rim of pretty much any Dark Peak hill, clearly. Half the fun is picking a line that doesn't involve using the sand or peat  

Zwift

That's undoubtedly true, Al but here's the rub - footpaths are signed as such (for folks on foot) and yet some cyclists ignore this. How can you be getting annoyed over a few walkers being on a cycle track? They've as much legal right to be there as you. I'm playing Devils advocate.

You are playing devils advocate with the wrong person.  I'm not the one defending cyclists on footpaths and I'm not sure where you got that idea from as I specifically stated I had reservations about the footpaths for cyclists petition.

With regard to walkers on a cycle track I think you are getting the wrong idea about the tracks I am talking about. I'm talking about single track, gnarly downhills with jumps, berms, roots and features in a dedicated bike park/trail centre not a track across a field. Legal/illegal it's not the wisest place to stand.

Regardless I am of the opinion that we should all live and let live and not get confrontational about all this.

Al

That's a sweeping, inaccurate generalisation, where is your evidence for this?

Many cyclists ride in large groups. Speeding is difficult as the motors are restricted.  Having their saddles too low.  I have no idea what you mean by that?  Do you mean a dropper post.  Many mountain bikes have dropper posts they are not limited to EMTB's.

The fact is the world is full of idiotic tw*ts.  Some of them ride E bikes, some ride ordinary bikes and horror of horrors some of them even climb.

Al

Walkers have the legal right to walk down the middle of a dual carriageway this doesn't make it a good idea. 

My opinion on this whole topic is that everyone should be respectful of each other and share space nicely there are some place where it is incredibly dumb to ride a bike and some places it is incredibly dumb to walk this doesn't necessarily correspond with their designation as a particular right of way. when you  do come across other users use ones brain and don't be a twunt (not directed at anyone on this thread) and everyone should be able to rub along nicely.  I accept that lots of people seem to be incapable of doing this but banning things does'nt seem to help.

Why on earth would you do that? I've walked from Liverpool to Ashton down the East Lancs and I stuck to the grass verge. What's that to do with tracks in a forest?

I think some of the problems with the rise in e-bikes comes from the ability of riders to now ride terrain where getting off and pushing was the only option for the majority on long travel bikes, opening up previously seldom visited areas to a much larger crowd who wouldn't slog it up there.

The increased speed you can reach on more mellow assents doesn't do anything for mtbs image amongst the rambler crowd. They maybe restricted in the factory but plenty of folk are tuning their bikes once they get them home. One planet adventure were complaining last week of people riding e-mtbs against the flow of traffic on some of their trails.

I think e-bikes are great for getting people into cycling that otherwise might not or leveling the playing field when going on a group ride. But I can see crackdowns on the horizon if they start aggravating other trail users as to the lay person their are pretty much the same as e-motocross bikes. 

Why would you walk on purpose built mountain bike trails when there’s loads of other options. You CAN do it but does that mean you should.

You can see it's an e-bike in those photos, they always travel in packs. 

In terms of speeds as someone else has said lots of these bikes have had their limiters removed, and even those which haven't go noticeably faster than non e-bikes. Riders on them take the piss, riding with an attitude normally found in BMW drivers.

Saddle heights I don't mean dropper posts, look at e-bikers next time you see them. Because they are being assisted they don't have saddle at correct height, they slumped down like they are sat on a sofa. 

Like you say every activity attracts idiots and angels but in my experience the e-bikes are on the idiot end of the scale. 

I think the issues particularly arises in trail centers which are not on CRoW land (typically private managed forests) where MTBers have purpose built & maintained one-way trails separate from any RoWs. This is quite different from bridleways and CRoW land where any biker needs to ride like there are slow moving users round every corner (or even fast moving users coming the other way).

You can try asking this question of the cyclists who insist on riding on footpaths.

Cyclists don't have a right to ride on CRoW land (unless of course on a BW or similar). On the other hand, walkers can roam freely, except on closed days.

you can but it's not the same question a cyclist riding on a footpath or bridal way should expect to encounter other users and should ride accordingly on a purpose built one way trial they do not neither do drivers on a dual carriageway. 

The difficulty from a cyclists point of view is pedestrians seem to have an issue where ever you ride. 

Possibly.  No they don't.  I mostly ride alone.

De-restricting the bike is stupid as it voids the warranty so I don't think it is as common as you may think and, with the style of riding I do, rather pointless. The only time I go faster is uphill.

What's it got to do with you what their saddle height is.  That's simply judgemental snobbery.

Might I suggest therefore that your experience is limited or your expression of your experience is biased and loaded.

Al

someone has a some free time.....

You missed my point. Many trail centers are on non-CRoW land where MTBers have explicit permission from the landowner to do their thing and walkers do not (except for RoWs).

I think you're wasting your time, Lankyman isn't missing your point he's willfully ignoring it.

I think it's fair to point out that even on a purpose built bit of mtb singletrack in a trail centre riders still need to be aware that there may be a 'slow moving user' around any given corner (slower than them in any case).  Even perhaps a fallen fellow rider.

On less official trails there's also the risk that people might wander across trails on foot simply because they don't realise what they are. 

I've done it myself while exploring unfamiliar bits of woodland, there's a lovely patch of woodland not far from here that I've only really discovered since the first lockdown.  It isn't CROW land, it's crossed by a couple of rights of way, but by far the most trodden (and ridden) routes are ones that neither riders nor walkers seem to have an official right to be on.  Toiling up the hill on foot, I only realised I was on a bit of mtb single track that had been unofficial developed by local riders when I came to a bit where they'd built a berm and a couple of jumps.

Here's a pic of one of my favourite paths there.  The 'up yours smiley face' is as likely to have been added by a horse rider as a cyclist I think btw, there are lots of stables and riding schools around there.  I've met walkers, runners, bike and horse riders there, everyone seems to get along fine as far as I can tell.

Scotland.

Hi Neil

This is not having a go at you, but I just wanted to enquire about your statement that of effectively 'bad behaviour by group x tars all group x.'

Is this a statement of something that happens by people - which I agree it does, but is worth countering, or something that we must accept?

Personally I think this is something that is worth countering when we see it. In the same way that a poor BMW driver is a poor driver, not that all BMW drivers are poor (which we still 'joke about'). To the other end of the spectrum - Some racial/religious group did Y and therefore all persons of that group are bad - which seems to be the basis of a lot of the Stephen Yaxley-Lennon / Tommy Robinson trope.

There is a call by some cyclists to call out this behaviour - which seems to happen in the media quite a lot, commentary that if applied to a different group would be seen as, for example racist 

Just a side line worth thinking about, as a debating point...

Kind regards

It's a statement of something that happens and would ideally not happen but is unlikely to change in practice.

It's accentuated, in the case of cyclists, by other cyclists defending poor behaviour rather than, as better cyclists do, deriding it and those taking part in it.  Some do use the phrase "that's not a cyclist, that's a person on a bike (POB)" (or even better "bike shaped object" ) which helps, but so, so many don't.  At least it would be possible to say nothing rather than defending it.

In this specific case, the simple answer is that cycling on a footpath is not what a footpath is for (regardless of any legal technicalities or lack of enforceability) and so that act should be talked down, not defended.

In your opinion.  But as noted in many posts above the designations of "footpath" and "bridleway" in England/Wales really aren't fit for purpose any more in many, many cases.  Historically what a great many footpaths 'were for' was practical transport between villages, on foot or involving horses, before bicycles had been invented.  By the time a "Public Footpath" became a thing a lot of the designations were made completely arbitrarily. 

The 'Green Drive' in the Burbage Valley for example.  It was not originally built primarily with people on foot in mind, it was for posh nobs venturing out from the Longshaw Lodge in horse drawn carriages, hence the name.

There are plenty of bridleways around here that aren't well suited for being ridden on while they're gopping wet, and footpaths that can handle the traffic quite easily.  So as a pragmatic (mostly) non-cyclist, I would much prefer to see people riding on the latter and avoiding the former while the ground is waterlogged.  Respectfully of other users of course, be nice say hi.

Thanks for the answer.

Which is fair enough, but where we possibly differ is that if you think the designation is wrong the thing to do is seek to have it changed, not ignore it.  I do see your point about the specific one under discussion, but there are road alternatives which while longer are also no doubt much easier to ride, so the only reason for riding on that one is for an activity of mountain biking, not as a means of access between the two, because on a bike that would certainly be easier on the minor road to the north.

How would you feel if a 4x4 driver felt that a given bridleway should be an unrestricted byway and just drove on it anyway?

A bridleway that's wide enough and solid enough to take the traffic without being damaged?  In my experience they only seem to exist along farm tracks that see regular vehicular traffic anyway. 

But regardless, if the 4x4 driver is someone who got out and lifted their vehicle over a locked gate to access that track the way a mountain biker might do with their bike, I'm probably not going to feel like I want to get in their way.

Bit of a Strawman there!

The 4x4 on a BW would be a Criminal Offence.

A cyclist on a FP-ROW is not a criminal offence.

Interesting view here from a former RoW officer:

https://www.cyclinguk.org/article/campaigns-guide/cycling-on-footpath-tresp...

"If cycling is considered a 'reasonable' behaviour, perhaps it could be allowed on footpaths"

"There is no logical basis for believing that the right of access to a footpath should be limited to access on foot. Rather the issue is whether use is reasonable"

"Cycling along footpaths has not been held to be a public nuisance. If cycling was a private nuisance to the owner it would be a trespass even with a right of way. So if cycling along, say, a bridleway is not a private nuisance then cycling along a footpath cannot be. The clear implication is that a cyclist on a public footpath has lawful authority to be there and is not a trespasser."

While not disagreeing with the legal status of various types of path - it would be nice if there was a type of path that was reserved solely for pedestrians. Where they could stroll along admiring the view and chatting to their companions without the need to be constantly aware of cyclists who are, or should be, travelling at a greater rate of knots. Without the need to be startled or to step aside every time a cyclist rings their bell at them or simply speeds past. And don’t even get me started on horses and their ability to turn a pleasant path into a muddy wasteland.

While multi use paths sound like a good idea, to work properly they need all users to show consideration for all other uses at all times.

Something that all too often doesn’t happen.

this is how most pedestrians treat all forms of path at the moment footpath, bridal way, byway and even some roads.

personally I find that ringing a bell on a bike produces such unpredictable reactions that it causes more problems than it solves I've seen bells that actually ring constantly when turned "on" I think these might be better I'll report back.

As a BMW owner (albeit a 20-odd year old beemer) I rather resent that statement.  Looking at the photo I would expect them to be riding much​​ closer together than they are.

Interestingly, Milton Keynes (which is rather a Dutch style law unto itself in this regard) has two types of off-road paths.

Redways are shared-use paths which should be treated (per the Redway Code, which has no legal status per-se but is how the designers saw it and how the Council promotes it) as a traffic-free country lane.  That is you should cycle on the left, walk on the right and neither should do anything to obstruct the other e.g. sit in the middle to eat lunch or walk or cycle 3 or 4 abreast across the full width.

Leisure paths are shared-use as well, but they are narrower and pedestrians have priority, i.e. cyclists should cycle slowly, expect to have to stop frequently and pedestrians have no implied obligation to look out for them nor to avoid obstructing them.

You can tell the difference because the former are in red tarmac and the latter in light coloured gravel.  Though this could as easily be signage.  Perhaps bridleways should take the former rule and footpaths the latter?

In the 21st century councils should just compulsory purchase 2m strips along edges of fields that link villages, towns, woodlands, small local lakes etc... then cyclists, walkers, parents with buggies, wheel chairs can all travel safely around each other and don't need to tackle stiles every 100-200m. Gravel them, decent drainage and poo bins at either end. It won't be free to set up, but good user friendly services rarely are. Many farmers might sell at a discount if they no longer have to maintain the stiles etc. 

There can still be twisty quaint paths that take you to places you'd never imagine, over a bewildering array of different types of stile and step through, but key routes near urban areas need something better.

It's easy to be negative about my idea but right now there is a thread about livestock and another about bikers. The current system isn't fit for use. 

The current footpath "system" is basically for leisure use - very few of them are useful for transport purposes.  I would completely agree that we need pavements and cycleways alongside basically all roads of any significance - it's often the case that car is the only safe way to travel to/from small places because walking or cycling is so dangerous.

My example of the A421, though, could be done easily by taking a couple of metres off the road width.

One thing I find interesting is that there seems to be a regional variation in provision of pavements and cycle paths alongside rural roads.  Provision in West Lancashire, for example, is really quite good (with e.g. the A59 between Liverpool and Ormskirk and whatever the main road from Ormskirk to Southport is, having Dutch style separate cycle paths as well as pavements for large parts of their length, often even on both sides of the road) yet in Buckinghamshire it's woeful with almost no rural roads at all having pavements.

Examples from West Lancs:

https://www.google.com/maps/@53.6240789,-2.961253,3a,75y,121.85h,84.21t/dat...

https://www.google.com/maps/@53.5466078,-2.9181089,3a,75y,199.41h,74.85t/da...

- and those are not new, they've been there for years - as a kid the provision of those cycle paths meant I was allowed to cycle on the main road to get places independently, without them I wouldn't have been.  So well over 40 years.

I don't consider a 1m wide pavement next to a 60mph A road acceptable either. It's pretty daunting. 

It's not great but it's better than nothing.  Indeed, if there was limited funding, providing that on more roads rather than something wider on fewer roads would be preferable.  Reducing the speed limit to 40 or 50 is also fairly cheap (just needs signage), and it's amazing how much difference going from 60 down to 50 makes.  (TBH I think the NSL should be 70 (or 80)-60-50, not 70-70-60, i.e. apply van limits to all vehicles).

Timber bells? I use them on the mountain bike and they generally seem to work well.

Downside is they are at the best when its a bad surface especially when going fast (having the off switch is handy). Better the surface the less noise you get and hence on some of the flat and tarmacced old railway paths they become of limited utility so I use a normal bell on the road bike (mountain bike can pump the forks to get some noise out of it but less than ideal).

At the moment, riding in a group is what should be being talked down.

I find the cheap "ping" bells to be useless, but a proper Dutch "crown bell" (the sort that make the traditional "rrring-rrring" sound) do get attention.  They only cost a fiver so I'd recommend any cyclist to get one.  The Dutch know their cycling and have this one right.

Constant ringing is noise pollution and so not desirable.

Until midnight, at which point riding in a group of 6 2m apart is acceptable.

I guess the cyclists were formally trespassing but of course there is a rich tradition in doing this. 

A gentle polemic covering tresspass (and aggravated trespass) can be found in The Book of Trespass by Nick Hayes.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/54063245-the-book-of-trespass

This photo wasn't taken tomorrow.

Well I believe I posted the reference to Nick Haye's book a few minutes before this appeared

https://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/features/author_nick_hayes_on_trespass_...

Bit of a coincidence.

It’s not always possible to slow down to a sensible speed, keep a bike upright and ring a bell when on a bridal way if you wait till you’re slowed down an are quite close then you make people jump out of their skins 

So how many hilly forrest trails do the Dutch have then.

Use metallic/sintered pads on a mtb (or even some brands of semi-metallic pads) and you won’t have to bother with a bell when braking 😉!

Then you are riding too fast for the conditions on a shared path (as a bridleway is).  Or it's not a suitable place to be cycling.

If they're dedicated trails then there shouldn't be pedestrians (if there are, just shout at them to move!)

If they aren't dedicated to MTB, you need to ride as if there is a pedestrian around the corner you can't see, or you need to have someone stood there ensuring pedestrians aren't in the way, or the trail isn't suitable for you to ride at all because it poses a risk to others.

You haven’t answered the question. Which is odd given you brought the Dutch up as an example.

Do you often ride in church?

The question wasn't relevant.

The answer is probably close to none, but the point is that nobody should, other than on a dedicated, signed MTB trail where people are asked on said signage not to walk, be riding such that they cannot stop if a pedestrian doesn't see them.

If MTBers think that *is* acceptable, then that is a very, very good reason that they should not be allowed on footpaths.

Yes, that means some trails which might be fun to MTB down are not suitable for MTBs.

I’m sorry if I misunderstood but you were saying how good the Dutch were at alerting  people on bike trails but now you say it’s not relevant.  Well there you go.

I was saying that those bells are good for general cycling use because the Dutch know cycling.  They are certainly better than the single-ping bells.

So how good would they be on a hilly North of the Trent hilly Forrest trail.

So how good would they be on a hilly forrest trail up north. As for the Dutch knowing cycling. I didn’t see Dylan Groenewegan ringing his bell when he put Fabio Jakobson  in to the barriers on the first stage of the tour of Poland.

Aisle second your comment.

They know how to build good transport infrastructure which isnt the same thing and, if anything, is  negative with regarding how to use bells since they tend to avoid shared paths.

Wow! What a pompous ass.