The following is a video shot by Andy Tasker of the Trail Riders Fellowship (motorbike equivalent of GLASS). He is a clued up chap, and has in the past presented points of view and discussions that seem to sugeest he knows his stuff.
The c*ck should have had a helmet on....!!
Imagine meeting someone like that in a land rover...
He is totally in the wrong, and not a clue about what he is talking about.
Unfortunately it is his sort that are being listened to!
The cyclist was pissed off, I understand that, as even I've seen people offroading on motorbikes being rude, ignorant and illegal. He just chose a reasonably polite, clued up, articulate and law abiding (i.e. the wrong) bunch of motorbikelists to get all vigilante on.
We have all seen the wrong type of whetever, including Land Rover owners. The cyclist was acting on a whim & illegally, personally i would have asked him politely once, then, just ridden on, over him if necessary.
Likewise. I might have added a courteous invitation to go home, calm down, clue himself up and report me to the police if he still thought I was acting illegally.
The video motorbikelist's approach was a bit too "Watchdog" for my liking.
My advice to would be off roaders is to carry a large jar of vaseline to help with the insertion of the bicycle up the cyclist.
Yet it was the only reasonable response to a potentially unpleasant situation. In the end, the cyclist realised he was on a hiding to nothing and carried on his way. We might hope that he had some of his prejudice shaken at the same time although we shall never know.
Any escalation or more aggressive action on the part of the motorcyclists would have only made things worse. The cyclist may then have had good reason to complain and would definitely had his prejudice confirmed or possibly even have ended with the involvement of the police. Imagine getting home to find them waiting after having your registration reported. Just having to explain everything would be pain enough.
As it happens, the video was only of any use because the motorcyclists were polite but insistent. If they were anything else, the video would have been ammunition for those who would have us stopped from taking part in a legal activity. It would certainly have been no use in the event of a dispute.
I have had similar discussions over the right to walk on footpaths. Nobody wins when it gets to shouting.
Be sure you are in the right, be firm but polite, be assertive but not aggressive. Be aware that the person who questions your rights already has the adrenaline flowing and starts off wound up. Don't let it escalate or we all lose.
Pete
On or around Sun, 19 Nov 2006 17:24:10 +0000, Simon Isaacs enlightened us thusly:
one thing I reckon is that many of the off-road bikes are excessively noisy, most especially 2-stokes but also some 4-strokes. They'd get less of a bad press (and so would we in 4x4s) if they (we) made a bit of effort to make the things quieter, even when they are in the right. In that case, you couldn't hear what MTB-boy was saying until the engines had been shut down - and he wasn't that far away and was doubtless talking quite loudly.
It has to be said that a number of trail riders don't respect rights of way and ride wherever they want - I've seen them and seen the evidence - there seem to be more than 4x4s behaving thus, presumably 'cos it's easier to take a bike off-road than a 4x4 in many places. And that includes the ones riding a legal route who go off-piste to avoid a big puddle or suchlike. Exactly the same as 4x4s who behave similarly, and the same problem.
Matey on the MTB was, though, ill-informed and in the wrong and it doesn't matter whether or not they'd arrived at that point legally or otherwise, by riding on the lane where he was, they were committing no offence. If MTB-boy wants to do something about the supposed offence elsewhere then he can report it to the authorities, he's still not entitled to obstruct the road.
Worth taking a video camera on off-road jaunts, though. A few films like that given wide publicity might improve matters. However, the good aspect of that is partly undone by the apparent amount of noise, which was my first impression. It's not impossible to have effective silencers on a bike.
Roger uttered summat worrerz funny about:
I'd imagine he was only expecting one or two bikes and probably wished he could disappear up his own arse once he'd started his ill thought out campaign.
Instead he continued to dig.... which has to be said is not PC on a public right of way :-)
Lee D
Don't forget that this is entirely legal within limits, you are entitled to go around an obstruction on a RoW even if you have to go off it to do so, as long as what you do is regarded as "reasonable".
I'm often in two minds about that, on the one hand, ploughing through deep mud on a RoW isn't a good idea as it makes it worse, but going around it makes the RoW wider and starts creating damage around the deep mud. I usually try to go through the mud but to be honest it's not happened to me personally in a few years as the RoW I visit these days don't have deep mud on them.
Indeed, useful but require a lot of wiring in and fitting, whereas video recorders are probably only a few years away from being found in christmas crackers the electronics are so cheap these days. While they can't record things like RPM/Lights very well, they can certainly record which car was heading where, I'm sure you've come across a few RTCs in your time where someone filming the whole thing would have been a real boon.
On a RoW you have the right to travel, but not dawdle, look at the scenery, stop, picnic, fiddle-arse about etc etc, so he was the lawbreaker on so many levels ;-)
are vehicles. Therefore, if the cyclist can use the lane, so can the motorcylist. TonyB
That used to be the case, but sometime a few years back (10 or 20 perhaps, can't remember), the law was changed to allow cyclists to use bridleways, but they're still not allowed on footpaths. So a cyclist can ride a bridleway but a motorcyclist can't.
That bit is correct
This lane appears to be a byway open to all traffic, so both were legally using it. Had it been a bridle way then the bike, even though a vehicle, is allowed to use it as all bridle ways were made legal for cycling in the 1948 town and country planning act (IIRC). There are also circumstances were a road used as a public footpath can legally be ridden.
Under certain acts (1925 law of property act comes to mind, both bikes and pushchairs are considered to be vehicles.
nearly 30 years ago I worked for a barrister and it was his contention that prior to one of the aforesaid acts a bridle way was only for leading a horse along by the bridle!
AJH
Motorcyclist should have removed his helmet before entering the discussion ;-)
AJH
Regrettably Roads Used as Public Paths (RUPPs) no longer exist in England as the NERC Act has converted them all into Restricted Byways (RBs) that have no vehicular rights.
He didn't mention RUPPs, he mentioned a road used as a footpath, not a technical term, literally a road, which also has public footpath status. The term I've seen is "Definitive Footpath", which carries vehicular rights while being a footpath. Bonkers isn't it.
On or around Sun, 19 Nov 2006 19:55:30 +0000, Ian Rawlings enlightened us thusly:
often, though, it's not reasonable. If there's no reasonable way around, then your option is to reverse or turn and go another way.
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.