On 3 Sep 2016 at 10:19pm grateful wrote:
Thanks due to LDC for putting up signs on the footpath from Highdown Rd to the Downs this week. Makes it clear that it's a footpath and not a bridleway, cycle path etc. Hope thats the end of the horses using it
On 4 Sep 2016 at 8:15am Sussex Jim wrote:
Erecting a sign will not stop regular uses from abusing it, unless it is enforced. Installing barriers at each end, and possibly along its length just above head height (similar to those used in some car parks) should stop horse riding.
On 4 Sep 2016 at 9:00am Or... wrote:
Maybe you could politely point out to horse riders that it's not a bridle way?
On 4 Sep 2016 at 11:05am Ideal world wrote:
That's what you would hope for 'Or' but in the real world when you politely point it out, you get told to 'F Off!'. The blonde woman rider will even throw in a "Yee Haa" if she's feeling particularly benevolent.
On 4 Sep 2016 at 12:12pm Or... wrote:
So at that point I would take out my phone and video her riding along the path, I would then share that video with the council.
On 4 Sep 2016 at 2:09pm grateful wrote:
My friend has just told me 2 horses came down the footpath from the Downs about 10am yesterday morning - so disappointed. I don't have a mobile phone that takes photos but it is a good suggestion.
It's difficult enough to get past a pushchair on that path never mind a great big horse or 2.
On 4 Sep 2016 at 3:05pm Final solution wrote:
to the poxy dfl horsey lot - Cattle grids across each end of the footpath - simples.
On 4 Sep 2016 at 7:09pm Stevied wrote:
Don't understand why the council removed the original barrier from the path not long ago - it was just asking for riders to start using it!
On 4 Sep 2016 at 8:09pm Oldie wrote:
It was because mobility scooters use the footpath and couldn't get round the barriers easily. Goodness know what happens if they met a horse, who backs up? I don't think they could pass each other
On 4 Sep 2016 at 9:28pm A Person wrote:
You can put up all the signs you like; people will do as they please.
My dog chases cyclists, so I take her to a park where there are signs at either end making it clear that cycling is forbidden. It makes no difference whatsoever; as far as the bikes are concerned it's a short cut which saves 'em a few minutes. Then she chases them and they swear a lot, and neither do they stop as they rejoin the main road with the dog in hot pursuit. I'll sue their @rses off if she gets hurt on the road.
(I do wonder a bit why the horse riders are DFLs. I'm afraid I think it's much more likely that they're very entitled locals...)
On 4 Sep 2016 at 10:52pm Tipex wrote:
This thread HAS to be a wind up!? Rage against horseriders and cyclists for using a footpath?? WHO CARES?? For both - briefly move slightly to the side, say "hello", smile, then get on with your life!!
On 4 Sep 2016 at 10:56pm Of topic wrote:
If your dog chases cyclists, doesn't come when called and there's a chance of her running into the road, why don't you have her on a lead? Not trolling, just saying. And as much as I hate cyclists you can't blame one for not stopping if there's a frigging dog chasing them, yes they might not be allowed to ride in the park but if your dogs off a lead you need to be in control of it. I know you're going to say "I take it where no cycling is allowed", but that's not the point, the point is you're not in control of the dog.
On 5 Sep 2016 at 9:04am A Person wrote:
It's a reasonable question Of(f) Topic, and the answer is because there is nowhere else, apart from this one patch of land in town, where it is safe because everywhere else allows cycles. I do indeed keep her on a lead in the other open spaces; why should she not be free to run where she should be safe? She is no threat to anyone otherwise. She's just very reactive to bikes and horses, and anyone who has had a dog will know how hard it is to prevent that response.
Tipex: there are rules covering both these pieces of public land. The path between Highdown Rd and the open fields is narrow and curved so you can't see what's coming the other way, and one I use often with the dog. My dog is very reactive to horses and would bark and jump, even on a lead, if confronted unexpectedly with riders in a very confined space. It's obvious why that situation would be dangerous.
I don't take the dog into Grange Gardens. It's not allowed, so I don't do it. I suspect there'd be little sympathy if I simply decided that I didn't want to stick to the rules. The cyclists she's chasing are deliberately deciding to cycle where they are expressly forbidden, with clear signage. (One of the two signs has been defaced, but the council has replaced the other with a new, very obvious, one.)
It's not just a matter of inconvenience to one individual either; the path on that patch of land passes right by a child's playground and anyone on the path outside the playground is not visible to a cyclist illegally using that path. It is really not hard to imagine a child being seriously harmed by someone going at speed along there. The prohibition is not there for trivial reasons; the prohibition is there to prevent injury. I'd suggest you wouldn't be smiling if that happened to someone you cared about, Tipex.
This isn't about dogs, or horses or bikes: it's about rules and whether it's okay to break them because it happens to suit you. I have offered my own set of reasons why it's not reasonable and could easily be harmful. That's all.
On 5 Sep 2016 at 12:12pm stevied wrote:
@Tipex - the footpath in question is about four feet wide with a wall on one side and a fence on the other. There's a bend in the middle so when you enter it you can't see if anybody is already using it, even if they're on a horse. I don't know about you, but I certainly wouldn't try squeezing past a horse with no opportunity to move out the way if it kicked out....
On 5 Sep 2016 at 12:50pm Kissing Gate wrote:
OK so the grid was thumbed down - have a kissing gate.
On 5 Sep 2016 at 6:32pm Dad wrote:
Assume you're talking about the park in Bell Lane 'A Person'. I can see why there's no cycling through the narrow entrance but other than that it's perfectly safe unless there are people who can't keep their dogs under control.
On 5 Sep 2016 at 9:28pm A Person wrote:
Oh really? So why is cycling forbidden then? And why do you know better? Why not go via the road???
On 6 Sep 2016 at 12:06am Ideal World wrote:
Good point, well made 'A Person'.
This isn't about dogs, or horses or bikes: it's about rules and whether it's okay to break them because it happens to suit you.
On 6 Sep 2016 at 1:31am Dave wrote:
If I can't see the logic for a rule I'll generally ignore it
On 6 Sep 2016 at 12:04pm Penny's worth wrote:
'Dave' even if it will potentially cause an accident or upset to someone else - an innocent bystander?
For the people who don't know, the horses aren't bombproof old nags, they are racehorses. Often skittish and easily spooked. The riders I assume are experienced but even so, the people old and young who use the footpath should not need to squeeze past them. Probably they have exceptionally good public liability insurance, who knows?
On 6 Sep 2016 at 1:04pm Ed Can Do wrote:
Next time you're going up the footpath take some rookies with you, that tends to get horses out of the way pretty quickly.
On 6 Sep 2016 at 1:19pm Birdage wrote:
Live on Highdown Road and I do cycle up that path regularly and slowly and get off if someone is walking down. I will walk the bike up there now there are signs. Didn't know you couldn't cycle up there Would also be nice if dog owners cleaned up their dogs poop though. The path up to and including Landport Bottom is basically a dog loo sometimes and not a great place to be when you have young children. Probably rules about dog fouling too.
On 6 Sep 2016 at 3:33pm @Birdage wrote:
Good rule of thumb, if it's 3 foot wide it's a footpath, if it's 6 foot wide there's a good chance it's a cycle path.
Not sure about Bridleways, safe to assume it isn't unless it's marked.
On 6 Sep 2016 at 4:04pm Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
Or check on an OS map. Small dashes = footpath, longer dashes = bridleway.
On 6 Sep 2016 at 4:15pm @Birdage wrote:
I just meant "as you're out and about" ACT, look at it, if it's not 6 foot wide it's not a cycle path.
Plus, the path Birdage is talking about is clearly not 6 foot wide, it was my polite way of saying "you're having a laugh if you thought there was a chance that could be a cycle path".