Cycling on Footpaths

The cyclist here is on the Strawberry Lee bridleway. It's interesting because she (?) is looking straight ahead. Usually I find cyclists up here are looking down. I approve of bicycles. For a start they are quieter and slower than cars and I prefer a slower pace to life. I would sooner ban cars than bikes. It's some years now since I was a cyclist, but to me they belong on roads and made up tracks. Seeing them on hills and moors never seems right. I'm uneasy about off road bikes in the countryside. Not surprising seeing that for the first half of my lifetime you would never have seen anyone on a bike on a country path, only on tarmac roads. Then along came heavy duty tyres and mountain bikes and all changed.

Cyclists are permitted by law to ride their bikes on designated bridleways. Not elsewhere, and that includes Rights of Way, informal footpaths and other routes and open areas which can be crossed on foot.

It's easy to see when this restriction has been ignored on the typically soft peaty earth of Blacka. This has been the subject of discussions at recent RAG (Reserve Advisory Group) meetings. It was decided that we would like small signs to be strategically placed at certain path junctions just where there had been or was likely to be a problem and that these signs should simply say "Walkers Only". One of the reasons for this was that not only the cyclists would be aware but also other visitors would know that cyclists should not be there.

Unfortunately, despite the issue being raised several times over a number of years, SWT have made no move to implement this - a situation not unusual with them. On Sunday afternoon (yesterday) three cyclists were observed on a route which was not a bridleway and not even a PROW. The result is a further mashing up of a pleasantly informal path. If SWT had put signs at the beginning of the route it could have had an effect. Nobody wants a wild place to be littered with signs but this can be reviewed after a time and anyway they would be positioned at entrance points.

The problem with cycling here is chiefly the impact the wheels have on a path. A bike is much more efficient at eroding the surface of paths than a walkers boots for obvious reasons. It maintains constant contact with the ground, the two wheels tend to cover the same ground and it is more inflexible, harder to make adjustments (for example to go from stone to stone as a walker might). But I think my reservations go further even than that. There is something about the speed at which a cyclist travels and the fact he invariably and of necessity is looking at the ground in front of him. This singles him out from the walker whose pace is slower allowing him to look all round as he's walking thereby feeling more related to the country he's going through. Too often the cyclist unless he stops sees little of his surroundings which tends to disconnect him from where he is. This doesn't apply on a tarmac track or road, where normally the ground is smooth and consistent. A horse rider is not constrained in the same way. The horse itself looks after most of the decisions about where to put its feet.

But the most worrying thing that has happened in recent years has been the development of 'extreme' cycling. I always feared this would be the next step. Practitioners of this believe they should be allowed to go anywhere and at whatever speed they want. Cycles have been driven off the road by selfish car drivers. Are walkers to be driven off the footpaths because some cyclists treat them as race tracks?