First time on a mountain bike

[Bill]

Honest.... I have never had a go on a mountain bike. I always ride road bikes, and have never even
fancied riding one, never mind wasting shed space on one.

However, I was recently given, free and gratis, a cheap and cheefull Saxon Cycles "Slipstream".
The name is a misnomer. The main tubes are as wide as my arms and the tread on the tyres could be
used a step ladders. The bike is in absolutely mint condition, a neighbour bought it then decided
after about 5 miles he preferred the car and it sat in his garage for a year till he had a
clearout last week.

I have oiled it up, and went for a ride this morning. Surprisingly I was impressed for it being a 1)
mountain bike and 2) a cheapy mountain bike. It rode easily, didn't bruise my arthritic spine like
the road bike does, and I actually enjoyed the more relaxed upright position. I enjoyed it so much
instead of doing a three mile loop round the block I did about 20 miles, and even went off road
along some of the footpaths across the fields.

Does this mean that in a few months I am going to be looking for a decent bike. Oh hell, the
wife'll kill me.

Bill

 

[Not Me]

Bill deftly scribbled:

> Honest.... I have never had a go on a mountain bike. I always ride road bikes, and have never even
> fancied riding one, never mind wasting shed space on one.
>
> However, I was recently given, free and gratis, a cheap and cheefull Saxon Cycles "Slipstream".
> The name is a misnomer. The main tubes are as wide as my arms and the tread on the tyres could be
> used a step ladders. The bike is in absolutely mint condition, a neighbour bought it then decided
> after about 5 miles he preferred the car and it sat in his garage for a year till he had a
> clearout last week.
>
> I have oiled it up, and went for a ride this morning. Surprisingly I was impressed for it being a
> 1) mountain bike and 2) a cheapy mountain bike. It rode easily, didn't bruise my arthritic spine
> like the road bike does, and I actually enjoyed the more relaxed upright position. I enjoyed it so
> much instead of doing a three mile loop round the block I did about 20 miles, and even went off
> road along some of the footpaths across the fields.
>
> Does this mean that in a few months I am going to be looking for a decent bike. Oh hell, the
> wife'll kill me.
>
> Bill

Ho yusss .. well ... maybe ...

Heheheh, don't want to appear to trying to tech you to suck eggs, but I'd suggest that anyone, no
matter how long they've ridden on-road, ought to get used to riding off-road on what they've got
first. Mistakes are likely to be made, and making them on a 'freebie' is much less painful to the
wallet. You could then decide what they want to do with regards to getting a newer, maybe better,
bike. Many many mountain bikes are so specialised in function these days that you need to be
reasonably sure of what you want in the way of comfort, grip, speed, 'climbability', downhill
ability etc etc ..

It's likely that you'll quite quickly find out what bits work for you and what bits don't. That
helps the decision process somewhat when determining what bike to buy next.

Have fun ..

--
Digweed

 

[Wafflydirtycatl]

>Does this mean that in a few months I am going to be looking for a decent bike. Oh hell, the
>wife'll kill me.

One cvan *never*, but *never* spend too much money on bikes and bike bits. In just the same way was
one can *never* buit *never* have too many bikes.

Cheers, helen s

~~~~~~~~~~
This is sent from a redundant email Mail sent to it is dumped My correct one can be gleaned from
h$**$*$el$**e$n$**$d$**$o$*$t**$$s$**$im$mo$ns*@a$**o$l.c$$*o$*m*$ by getting rid of the
overdependence on money and fame
~~~~~~~~~~

 

[Simon Galgut]

"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]... I
enjoyed it so much instead of doing a three mile loop round the block I did about 20 miles, and
> even went off road along some of the footpaths across the fields.

It may not bother you, but riding footpaths is illegal. Stick to roads, byways, RUPPs, Bridleways
and most canal towpaths and you'll be fine.

Regards Simon

 

[The Mark]

wafflyDIRTYcatLITTERhcsBOX wrote:
>> Does this mean that in a few months I am going to be looking for a decent bike. Oh hell, the
>> wife'll kill me.
>
> One cvan *never*, but *never* spend too much money on bikes and bike bits. In just the same way
> was one can *never* buit *never* have too many bikes.

But there's *never* enough space to keep them all.
--
Mark Road bike, Mountain bike and I'm getting something special built for me.

 

[The Mark]

wafflyDIRTYcatLITTERhcsBOX wrote:
>> But there's *never* enough space to keep them all.
>
> seems a reasonable enough reason to buy a bigger house.
>
I have in a way, my wife has just got her conservatory built. I say hers - she uses it as a sewing
room but no room for bikes.
--
Mark Road bike, Mountain bike and I'm getting something special built for me.

 

[James G]

Simon Galgut wrote:
> "Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]... I
> enjoyed it so much instead of doing a three mile loop round the block I did about 20 miles, and
>> even went off road along some of the footpaths across the fields.
>
> It may not bother you, but riding footpaths is illegal. Stick to roads, byways, RUPPs, Bridleways
> and most canal towpaths and you'll be fine.
>
I wouldn't say it is strictly speaking illegal, more that it is not explicitly legal.

 

[James G]

>Cycling on the footpath is illegal according to the Highway Code. See HC
Rule
>54 "You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement

Most footpaths are not pavements...

A footpath is a 'right of way' by foot only, as opposed to a bridleway which is a 'right of way' by
foot, horse and cycle. A 'right of way' refers to a legal right to traverse that piece of land
without hinderance. It's an affirmitave thing rather than being excluding. Just because you dont
have a 'right of way' along a path, doesnt make it illegal for you to move along
it. However if the land owner (or anyone else) chooses to prevent you from say, cycling along a
footpath, you would have no recourse as the right of way is only by foot.

 

[Richard Goodman]

"james g" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> >Cycling on the footpath is illegal according to the Highway Code. See HC
> Rule
> >54 "You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement
>
> Most footpaths are not pavements...
>
> A footpath is a 'right of way' by foot only, as opposed to a bridleway
which
> is a 'right of way' by foot, horse and cycle. A 'right of way' refers to a legal right to traverse
> that piece of land without hinderance. It's an affirmitave thing rather than being excluding. Just
> because you dont have
a
> 'right of way' along a path, doesnt make it illegal for you to move along
> it. However if the land owner (or anyone else) chooses to prevent you from say, cycling along a
> footpath, you would have no recourse as the right of way is only by foot.
>
>

It is probably arguable whether most footpaths are not pavements, but most pavements are certainly
footpaths and the Highways Act applies to them. The law in relation to areas set aside for the use
of "foot-passengers" does not make a pavement something different from footpath. The 1835 Act, by
virtue of its 1888 amendment, makes it illegal to "ride upon any footpath or causeway by the side of
any road made or set apart for the use or accommodation of foot-passengers" - it is the setting
apart, by the side of a road, for the use of foot-passengers that counts, not what you call it.
This, I think, is also confirmed in the well-known Selby case, dealing with whether it's ok to push
a bike across a crossing, where the judge says ""In my judgment a person who is walking across a
pedestrian crossing pushing a bicycle, having started on the pavement on one side on her feet and
not on the bicycle, and going across pushing the bicycle with both feet on the ground so to speak is
clearly a 'foot passenger'."

See http://www.lesberries.co.uk/cycling/misc/misc.html for a barrister's opinion on the law on
pushing bicycles on public footpaths - it being clear that the 'footpaths' being referred to are
ones covered by the Highways Act and being alongside roads.

Rich

 

[Bill]

wafflyDIRTYcatLITTERhcsBOX <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >I wouldn't say it is strictly speaking illegal, more that it is not explicitly legal.
>
> Cycling on the footpath is illegal according to the Highway Code. See HC
Rule
> 54
>
> "You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement. Do not leave your cycle where it would endanger or obstruct
> road users or pedestrians, for example, lying on the pavement. Use cycle parking facilities where
> provided. Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A sect 129"

Here in the wooly wilds of Suffolk we don't have pavements across fields, and I did say I went along
paths across fields, not paved pavements alongside the highway.

I didn't realise though that it was illegal to ride footpaths, as opposed to pavements. Who would
enforce it though.

Bill

 

[James G]

Richard Goodman wrote:
> "james g" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>> Cycling on the footpath is illegal according to the Highway Code. See HC Rule 54 "You MUST NOT
>>> cycle on a pavement
>>
>> Most footpaths are not pavements...
>>
>> A footpath is a 'right of way' by foot only, as opposed to a bridleway which is a 'right of way'
>> by foot, horse and cycle. A 'right of way' refers to a legal right to traverse that piece of land
>> without hinderance. It's an affirmitave thing rather than being excluding. Just because you dont
>> have a 'right of way' along a path, doesnt make it illegal for you to move along it. However if
>> the land owner (or anyone else) chooses to prevent you from say, cycling along a footpath, you
>> would have no recourse as the right of way is only by foot.
>>
>>
>
> It is probably arguable whether most footpaths are not pavements, but most pavements are certainly
> footpaths and the Highways Act applies to them. The law in relation to areas set aside for the use
> of "foot-passengers" does not make a pavement something different from footpath. The 1835 Act, by
> virtue of its 1888 amendment, makes it illegal to "ride upon any footpath or causeway by the side
> of any road made or set apart for the use or accommodation of foot-passengers" - it is the setting
> apart, by the side of a road, for the use of foot-passengers that counts, not what you call it.
> This, I think, is also confirmed in the well-known Selby case, dealing with whether it's ok to
> push a bike across a crossing, where the judge says ""In my judgment a person who is walking
> across a pedestrian crossing pushing a bicycle, having started on the pavement on one side on her
> feet and not on the bicycle, and going across pushing the bicycle with both feet on the ground so
> to speak is clearly a 'foot passenger'."
>
> See http://www.lesberries.co.uk/cycling/misc/misc.html for a barrister's opinion on the law on
> pushing bicycles on public footpaths - it being clear that the 'footpaths' being referred to are
> ones covered by the Highways Act and being alongside roads.

Exactly, a pavement refers to the legal entitiy of a footpath by the side of a road. The subject
under discussion here is the legality of cycling on footpaths in the countryside that are not
adjacent to roads.

 

[Simon Galgut]

"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
>
> I didn't realise though that it was illegal to ride footpaths, as opposed to pavements. Who would
> enforce it though.

The actual offence is one of trespass against the landowner as there is no right of way for a
bicycle. The landowner would be the one to enforce it through the courts.

Ignoring the pedantry above (a footpath that runs alongside a highway is called a FOOTWAY) it is not
a good idea to cycle on footpaths as, apart from being illegal, it winds up the tramplers and their
kin who then view all cyclists as the spawn of satan who should be banned from everywhere.

Regards Simon

 

[Geraint Jones]

"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Here in the wooly wilds of Suffolk we don't have pavements across fields,

By an odd coincidence, here in Oxford we do have a pavement across a field. It is the one on the
west bank of the river in the middle of
http://www.multimap.com/map/browse.cgi?X=452000&Y=209000&scale=25000 and goes nowhere. The clue is
the pub on the other side of the river which used to run the ferry. There hasn't been a ferry for
many years, but there is still a marked distance to Marson where the path leaves the "new" road.

This path appeared in an episode of Morose, when it was in a car park somewhere in the centre
of Oxford.

 

[Colin Blackburn]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> "Bill" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Here in the wooly wilds of Suffolk we don't have pavements across fields,
>
> By an odd coincidence, here in Oxford we do have a pavement across a field. It is the one on the
> west bank of the river in the middle of
> http://www.multimap.com/map/browse.cgi?X=452000&Y=209000&scale=25000 and goes nowhere. The clue is
> the pub on the other side of the river which used to run the ferry. There hasn't been a ferry for
> many years, but there is still a marked distance to Marson where the path leaves the "new" road.

Is that paved then? I've never been along it myself---I've normally approached the Victoria via the
least wet route.

> This path appeared in an episode of Morose, when it was in a car park somewhere in the centre
> of Oxford.

That wouldn't be the same episode where he walked down The High towards Magdalen Bridge only to
arrive at the Bookbinder's in Jericho would it?

Colin

 

[Just Zis Guy]

"Simon Galgut" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...

> The actual offence is one of trespass against the landowner as there is no right of way for a
> bicycle.

And it's not an offence AIUI, it's a tort[1].

[1] No, not a torte, that's a kind of gooey cake. A tort.

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.com

 

[Paul Kelly]

In news:[email protected], Just zis Guy, you know?
<[email protected]> typed:
> "Simon Galgut" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
>> The actual offence is one of trespass against the landowner as there is no right of way for a
>> bicycle.
>
> And it's not an offence AIUI, it's a tort[1].
>
> [1] No, not a torte, that's a kind of gooey cake. A tort.

Is a repeat offender gulity of tortology?

pk

 

[Geraint Jones]

Colin Blackburn <[email protected]> wrote: (
[email protected] says... ) > By an odd coincidence, here in Oxford we
do have a pavement across a ( > field. ... ) ( Is that paved then?

I am in a quandry here: if I were to answer "no", you would know that I had lied to you at least
once and so would have no reason to believe me, but if I answer "yes" it would be rather tedious.

How about "partly"?

 

[Richard Goodman]

"Simon Galgut" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...

> Ignoring the pedantry above (a footpath that runs alongside a highway is called a FOOTWAY)

Why do you say that a "footpath that runs alongside a highway" is called a footway? The Highways
Act, which creates the offence of riding on "a footpath that runs alongside a highway" calls it ..a
footpath....

Rich

 

[Simon Galgut]

"Richard Goodman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Simon Galgut" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> > Ignoring the pedantry above (a footpath that runs alongside a highway is called a FOOTWAY)
>
> Why do you say that a "footpath that runs alongside a highway" is called a footway? The Highways
> Act, which creates the offence of riding on "a footpath that runs alongside a highway" calls it
> ..a footpath....

footpath means a way over which the public have a right of way on foot only, not being a
footway (section 329 of the Highways Act 1980); footway means a way comprised in a highway
which also comprises a carriageway, being a way over which the public have a right of way on
foot only (section 329 of the Highways Act 1980); highway includes the carriageway, verge
and footway.

Regards Simon

 

[Richard Goodman]

"Richard Goodman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Simon Galgut" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> > Ignoring the pedantry above (a footpath that runs alongside a highway is called a FOOTWAY)
>
> Why do you say that a "footpath that runs alongside a highway" is called a footway? The Highways
> Act, which creates the offence of riding on "a footpath that runs alongside a highway" calls it
> ..a footpath....
>

Decided to look it up myself. TBH I had never heard the term 'footway' used to describe a pavement
until you mentioned it, but in fact it seems to be common usage by Local Authorities who generally
do describe their pavements as 'footways'. However, the fact of its common usage in Local Authority
highways departments doesn't seem to carry any legal significance. There would be no defence against
an 1835 Highways Act offence of cycling on the 'footpath' in saying, "But, it wasn't a footpath it
was a footway!". And the fact of common usage in highways departments doesn't make it common usage
for the general public either. About all you can say about it is that highways departments
apparently prefer to call their footpaths footways...

Rich