Growing hostility towards Mountainbikers and Cyclists

Re: Re:

k-rod":fcz5zz8t said:
One of the major reasons that authorities control or restrict bike access to certain areas or trails, is because knobby tires do an incredible amount of erosive damage to the soil and flora of any area that gets frequented, so to save parks and ground-cover ... they shut areas down.

I recall a study bitd proving that in terms of erosion a tyre made less or the same impact as walkers and significantly less than horses. The issue occurs at hotspots and parks. Skids are for kids. On BW's our erosion impact isn't much more than a walkers and we often get blamed when actually the trail is ruined by motorbikes or just in a hotspot where the mud / wet is constant, our tyre marks are more prevalent as we ride the mud whereas most walkers will widen trails by walking around the mud.
 
Re:

Some people are idiots, as well as self centred, filled with their own importance and feel they have a right to do as they please with no regard to others. Sadly some cyclists fall into that category (as well as far too many motorists) and give the rest a bad name for all the reasons in previous posts.

Living in London you see cyclists who think they know best as to what applies to them and what doesn't every day, and argue that the merits of this belief system is because of the risks that cyclists face on the roads. Only the other day as I collected my young daughter from school and walking home we were confronted by a cyclist on the pavement at "full" speed, who expected us to jump out of the way. Quite where, onto the road no doubt, all because he didn't want to follow the one way system and didn't fancy cycling the wrong way on a one way street.

If pavement goers were to follow the same "code" when they get behind the wheel of a car.......Let's face it there are a lot of pedestrians who are also motorists and they justify their appalling disregard for cyclists on the basis that cyclists don't respect the rules and don't accept the rules are different based on vulnerability. Cyclists shouting "you need to be considerate" at motorists while also saying "I can do what I like" are not going to win anybody over whatever the merits of the vulnerability issue.

All it takes is for everyone to show a little consideration and respect for others, but sadly this seems less common generally, we just see it as cyclists, but I think it is a more general trend, rather than a specific growing hostility.
 
The 'trundlers' are suffering at the hands of the 'grrrrrr' riders. If you watch any yootoob vid, the riders take no care in their surroundings and are consistently carving up their trails.

Around the Peaks, some of the routes are now impassable because the trails are so deeply rutted.

Moto riders carve up the byways around here and horses make them just as impassable through lack of foresight - if its wet, why dont you just give the trails a rest so they can dry out etc. Not so many green laners now but in some areas they are still an problem too.

You have to remember that 30 years ago when many of us started riding there were less people - 1986 the UK sat at around 56 million whereas today its around 65 million - all those extra millions also want to ride somewhere.
 
To give you a little insight of how regulated it is in Germany: There are different regulations depending on the state. In Baden-Württemberg (in the south-west) bikers are only allowed to ride on paths that are at least 2m wide. In Bavaria, no regulation. Hessen: no regulation. I don't know for the rest of Germany.
In Austria it is generally prohibited to ride in the woods. The land owners each have to give their permission.
I our region it is usually the rambling clubs that complain about the bikers. And they have a large lobby.

Riding in the citys is something completely different. And largely depends on the city government. In Tübingen where I live, we have had a "green" government for decades now. And cycling is really nice. No problems whatsoever. Enough cycle lanes, no cars parking on them due to "meter maids" patrolling everywhere...
 
Apologises peeps I was going from memory, which clearly hasn't kept up with changes in legislation and it's 20 yrs since I last lived in mainland Europe, when most places I went had little reg plates on bikes and the owners had 3rd party liability insurance. The following link gives reasons why some do and some don't and why it varies so much; http://ipayroadtax.com/licensed-to-cycl ... -to-cycle/
An interesting read
Personally I have insurance via the CTC scheme and in these days of increasing litigation via peronal injury claims, I think it safe guards yourself for not a lot.
 
legrandefromage":1t9elzmd said:
The 'trundlers' are suffering at the hands of the 'grrrrrr' riders. If you watch any yootoob vid, the riders take no care in their surroundings and are consistently carving up their trails.

Around the Peaks, some of the routes are now impassable because the trails are so deeply rutted.

Etc.

So where us the problem? Its there to be used. The damage is nothing compared to an extra lane on the m25 or another runway for heathow.

If you want - not you persinally - dont want countryside damage, dont allow anyone access, which defeats ths purpose.
 
Re:

Alas, the UK has generally followed the US and its mindset to a lot of things, even though it's closer to continental Europe. One time in the states, all persons had equal rights in the highway, whilst being obliged to take due care of all other road users. Eventually, motorised vehicles came to dominate the roads both practically and legally – the ‘crime’ of jay walking helped further subjugate road users on foot and put pedestrians in their place.

What's considered good, positive and beneficial for communities and the people who live within those communities has been increasingly eroded over decades of 'progress’. In post-war Britain, the brave new world of modernisation has been the way forward – communities and what's beneficial for the people living within them has been devalued. Pre-war, most people couldn’t or didn’t have to move around so much. More people could get about on foot or commute t’ factory by bicycle. There was a network of numerous branch lines or there were local trams/buses. Car ownership was way out of reach for most and the preserve of just the wealthy and landed.

The rot probably began at the start of the 1960s with the appointment of Dr Richard Beeching by Ernest Marples, Harold Macmillan’s then minister of transport. Marples was a businessman and quite possibly had too many fingers in too many pies. One of the biggest pies he was indulging in was the new road construction across the nation. Modernisation and motorways mattered. Increasing car ownership was seen as the model way forward – this would be good for business – particularly for those with a stake in the car industry. The railways were viewed as an archaic, loss-making beast, so they were obvious prey for the axe of Macmillan’s modernisers. Buses and individual car ownership would, from now on, get you around the land.

Decades of changes in technology, industry and employment, along with successive boom years, have had a socioeconomic impact on the nation. As people generally did better, they became more aspirational. Car ownership and mobility would become an intrinsic part of this and sign of one’s success and status. The car’s badge would symbolise your standing in society.

Car ownership and motoring have become the unstoppable norm and a birth right – symbolic of being grown up, successful and independent. Why then would you want to use public transport or god forbid get about on a bike? Surely, bikes are now just play things for children? Do only strange old beardy men use bikes as a means of transport because they’re poor or greens or commies?

Growth in populations and disposable income have lead to more and more people wanting more cars. The increasing volume of motor traffic has demanded the need for more road space. Petrol heads and the many varied interests vested in the motoring lobby dominate everything, even though they feel hard done by. Their collective voice has got evermore louder, shouting down the needs of people getting about on foot or using bikes.

Aspiration, status/social standing, the brand and model of car, the pride, its price, the cost of the insurance and Vehicle Excise Duty, the sense of self-importance, the feeling of power, the price of fuel, the gridlock, having to stop and wait for other road users – it’s a heady cocktail for the petrol heads. They’ve sweated and paid their dues. Why should cyclists have any rights to the road? They get in the way and they’re trying to get something for nothing! They don’t pay road tax or have any insurance either! Time for the punishment manoeuvre – oops, sorry I didn’t see you there…

Even pedestrians are allied with the anti-cycling core of the motoring lobby. They too believe that cyclists don’t pay their way and crucially break the law. The media (particularly certain papers who love a daily outrage) champion big-name cyclists who bring back the medals for Great Britain! but oddly perpetuate the fear that anyone riding a bike always jumps red lights, don’t stop for pedestrians at crossings, routinely ride the pavements, scare and maim the elderly or the blind with their guide dogs or families with their prams. Having spent a few years commuting back and forth across London, I would report back that these fears are mostly ill-founded. There are a few idiots on bikes but they're not the norm. The greatest danger to pedestrians (and cyclists) comes from buses, black cabs, delivery vans and the endless procession of heavy trucks of the construction industry. They’re infinitely more dangerous and the law seems to turn a blind eye to their indiscretions. Besides, there’s less risk for a traffic cop to stand in front of cyclist to issue a ticket, than do the same with someone in a moving motor vehicle.

Even local businesses are against us – cycle lanes mean there’s nowhere for cars to park and that will kill trade. Just ask David Burrowes MP, local to my Enfield area. A legitimate public consultation was conducted with all residents asked to vote on and submit their views on proposed safe cycling routes and infrastructure. Virtually every small business/trader put up bright yellow anti-cycling posters pedalling myths and fears about how the scheme would be unsafe to pedestrians, stop people being able to park outside shops and how trade would be killed because motorists wouldn’t be able to drive were they desired.

http://www.enfield-today.co.uk/article. ... hyear=2015

I work, I pay my taxes, drive a car, drive a van but irrespective of all this, why can’t I ride a bike if I choose to, without fear for my life every time? The public highways belong to us all. There’s no ring-fenced pot of tax that means it doesn’t. End of rant.
 
Re: Re:

02gf74":2wv09got said:
Why dont rickford council ban cars from the roads?
I am sure there have been many concusijons, severe permanent injuries as well as deaths due to cars.
Very true! I see many vehicles driving through pedestrianized area's and none of them travel at the recommended speed of 'walking pace' but travel up to speeds of 20 MPH in an area where there are folk running about shopping in which is supposed to be a safe environment for the pedestrian.
 
Back
Top