Wealth Management | S&T Wealth provide portfolio & investment advice

Author Topic: Horseriders attempt to destroy Chadkirk Chapel grounds  (Read 11309 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

wheels

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1460
Re: Horseriders attempt to destroy Chadkirk Chapel grounds
« Reply #20 on: January 23, 2015, 01:04:06 PM »
Totally agree Henrietta but I would extend you list to dog owners the majority of whom seem to think the rest of us want licking and attention from their beasts.

My login is Henrietta

  • Guest
Re: Horseriders attempt to destroy Chadkirk Chapel grounds
« Reply #19 on: January 23, 2015, 12:58:35 PM »
First of all most 'public footpaths' along the canals are not public rights of way. The Canal & River Trust refer to the towpaths as 'permissive paths' where they allow members of the public to walk along them, but reserve the right to withdraw such facility.
 
I am unsure also how you arrive at the illegality of cyclists on the towpath along the canal.

I do agree that madmen (& women) cyclists on the towpath are a nuisance when they are allowed on the 'permissive path' (towpath). Until the last couple of years one had to have a permit to cycle towpaths but as this became progressively unenforceable, it was removed. Pedestrians always have priority on towpaths.

It may surprise members that canal towpaths are not designated for horses, in fact it is illegal with the exception of horse drawn boats whereby a special license is required for the use of the horse.
Not a surprise to me. I've always known the rules about horses and towpaths.

When it comes down to it, it doesn't matter whether you are on foot, horseback, cycle, wheelchair or, good manners should prevail. Barging other users out of the way on footpaths, bridleways or towpaths (and in some cases, the street footpath!) is totally out of order but there are some users who think it's their right and woe betide others (and, yes, despite my special interest, I include some horse riders in this). too.

My login is Henrietta

  • Guest
Re: Horseriders attempt to destroy Chadkirk Chapel grounds
« Reply #18 on: January 23, 2015, 12:34:44 PM »
Henrietta says :- Rather than adopting an attitude of "I don't like it. Get rid of it" and stamping your metaphoric foot, why not get involved in the process. Put forward some sensible suggestions to the planners that will help make the plans work for everyone..

My post was in answer to your post but my remarks, especially this one, were made generally to anyone who has an axe to grind.

prestbury

  • Guest
Re: Horseriders attempt to destroy Chadkirk Chapel grounds
« Reply #17 on: January 23, 2015, 11:34:27 AM »
encouraging even more mountain bikers to illegally use the public footpath along the canal. A bridleway to the Chadkirk Chapel may well encourage even more bikers to use the canal towpath .

First of all most 'public footpaths' along the canals are not public rights of way. The Canal & River Trust refer to the towpaths as 'permissive paths' where they allow members of the public to walk along them, but reserve the right to withdraw such facility.
 
I am unsure also how you arrive at the illegality of cyclists on the towpath along the canal.

To quote the Canal & River Trust 'Our cherished network of 2,000 miles of canals and rivers flows through the most beautiful countryside and vibrant cities that England and Wales have to offer.
Easily accessible and free to explore, they are the ideal destination for boaters, anglers, walkers, cyclists and people looking for a fun day out in the fresh air.'
Cycling is a great way of seeing our network of canals and rivers and getting some exercise at the same time. If you’re planning a day out on your bike why not incorporate our canals into it? Our towpaths offer traffic free routes next to some of the country’s most stunning waterside scenery.
Our canals and rivers attract over 21 million visits from cyclists each year and with thousands of miles of towpaths, which by their nature tend to be fairly level, it’s easy to see why. Where else can you take in such a diverse range of wildlife and the country’s finest heritage structures while you’re out on your bike?
Providing green corridors through our cities and linking our towns and villages together, canal towpaths are used by a range of cyclists from boaters running errands on their bike to experienced cyclists on week-long tours and families taking an afternoon ride together.
The Canal & River Trust welcomes considerate cyclists to its towpaths and you don't need a permit to use your bike on any of our towpaths. However, we would ask that you take a look at our Greenways Code for Towpaths before you take to the towpaths. Lots of people visit the waterways, for many different reasons, and everyone is entitled to feel happy and safe while they're visiting.
'

I do agree that madmen (& women) cyclists on the towpath are a nuisance when they are allowed on the 'permissive path' (towpath). Until the last couple of years one had to have a permit to cycle towpaths but as this became progressively unenforceable, it was removed. Pedestrians always have priority on towpaths.

It may surprise members that canal towpaths are not designated for horses, in fact it is illegal with the exception of horse drawn boats whereby a special license is required for the use of the horse.

marplerambler

  • Guest
Re: Horseriders attempt to destroy Chadkirk Chapel grounds
« Reply #16 on: January 22, 2015, 11:29:02 AM »
Perhaps an appropriate acronym for a an alternative to a bridleway for usage by bridle users, cyclists and walkers could be a BRICWAL to reflect the likelihood of any legislative change to the appropriate highway laws.

marplerambler

  • Guest
Re: Horseriders attempt to destroy Chadkirk Chapel grounds
« Reply #15 on: January 22, 2015, 10:20:06 AM »

No in seriousness - I don't doubt there are some annoying such downhill riders around, but what to do about them surely has to be more intuitive than just making the entire practice of cycling on bridleways illegal.

That said, this new bridleway seems utterly pointless and any money available would surely be far better spent sorting out the route through Mill Lane/Dark Lane to Bredbury - for example there's the dodgy narrow wooded stretch there where it's very hard for walkers/cyclists/horseriders to pass.
You really have touched upon the real dilemma to be faced when discussing cycles on bridleways when you raise the subject of  Dark Lane/Mill Lane in Bredbury, part of the cycle route from Marple to Stockport. On the negative side there is the thought of the large number of mountain bikers who queue on the Pennine Bridleway at the top of the Peep-o-Day for their white knuckle ride down the very steep descent hoping waiting until the path is totally clear of walkers so that they can speed down when it is clear of pedestrians. These mountain bikers are not interested in travelling from A to B: their sole aim is the thrill of cycling down the steep bridleway as fast as possible. There will be half a dozen ‘responsible’ riders who wait at the top of the hill for a clear path which never seems to appear but an irresponsible member of the mountain biking fraternity then arrives who thinks ‘I am not queueing, I will speed down the hill as fast as I can and I don’t give a damn if I kill someone – if I am going fast enough the walkers will just have to get out of the way’. He will fly down at great speed, walkers will have to scatter to ensure that they are not hit by the speeding bike and then the whole queue of mountain bikers will immediately follow him once he has cleared the path of other users. Total madness: someone eventually is going to be killed or very seriously injured (including the cyclists).

Next ask me what is my opinion about a cycle route from Marple to Stockport up the Goyt Valley via Dark Lane/Mill Lane which enables cyclists to avoid the horrendous amount of traffic on the Marple to Stockport Road and thus make the commute from Marple to Stockport safer for both cyclists and motorists and I say ‘fantastic – the sooner the better’ with the caveat that the route should be designed to ensure that cyclists cannot reach high speeds on any downhill stretch.

The problem lies in the designation of routes on the Council’s legal map into public footpaths, public bridleways and byways open to all traffic (BOATS). Pedestrians, horses and cyclists can use a bridleway. I believe that many bridleways have become so dangerous as a consequence of usage by mountain bikers that only horses and walkers should legally be able to use a bridleway. The solution is a change in the legal designation of routes to introduce an additional new class of highway which permits usage by pedestrians, bikes and horses which would be appropriate for commuter routes such as the an off-road route from Marple to Stockport or the Trans Pennine Trail .

Middle wood

  • Guest
Re: Horseriders attempt to destroy Chadkirk Chapel grounds
« Reply #14 on: January 21, 2015, 08:15:52 PM »
It will be a real shame to close the walk along the stream in Chadkirk. I've walked this route and onwards to the canal entrance since childhood. It is a lot of unnecessary expense to accommodate a bridleway when there doesn't seem a desperate need for it.

I see a lot more walkers around Chadkirk than horses and I'd much prefer a gentle walk with my children where I don't have to watch out for horses.

rsh

  • Guest
Re: Horseriders attempt to destroy Chadkirk Chapel grounds
« Reply #13 on: January 21, 2015, 03:42:35 PM »
Or to provide a similar argument, I see some terrible motorists on the roads. Ban cars from roads! ;)

No in seriousness - I don't doubt there are some annoying such downhill riders around, but what to do about them surely has to be more intuitive than just making the entire practice of cycling on bridleways illegal.

That said, this new bridleway seems utterly pointless and any money available would surely be far better spent sorting out the route through Mill Lane/Dark Lane to Bredbury - for example there's the dodgy narrow wooded stretch there where it's very hard for walkers/cyclists/horseriders to pass.

Blossom

  • Guest
Re: Horseriders attempt to destroy Chadkirk Chapel grounds
« Reply #12 on: January 20, 2015, 09:30:24 PM »
I started this email because I feared that construction of a bridleway and changes to accommodate horses at Chadkirk would result in the destruction of the site but I fear only one thing more than horses and that is mountain bikes.

Horses and walkers generally peacefully co-exist. Both go slowly up and down hills. A much greater fear lurked at the back of my mind and that is mountain bikers.

This real problem is highlighted when you consider the considerable danger  that walkers and riders face face from madmen on bikes on bridleways who visit in huge numbers to cycle down steep descents such as on the Pennine Bridleway from just east of Peep-O-Day, just east of the summit of the Hayfield to Chapel road and the descent from Lantern Pike to Birch Vale. Some mountain bikers treat these routes as walls of death for high speed descent with absolutely no regard for other users. The road bikes we had in 1968 when usage of bicycles on bridleways became legal could not descend these rough tracks at speed. Mountain bikes are now designed to take these descents at great speed and many mountain bikers now expect that pedestrians or horses should not be obstructing their speedy descent and make no attempt to slow down as they speed down these routes.

A similar problem exists with mountain bikers bombing down the steep footpath from the canal towpath to Chadkirk. I believe that a new bridleway at Chadkirk will exacerbate this problem by encouraging even more mountain bikers to illegally use the public footpath along the canal and the public footpath from the canal down to Chadkirk. There are drainage problems on this route which has already been torn to shreds by mountain bikes. A bridleway to the Chadkirk Chapel may well encourage even more bikers to use the canal towpath

The change to highway law in 1968 allowing cycling on bridleways was well intentioned but the long-term unforeseen consequence has been the creation of a much more dangerous environment for pedestrians and horses and I now believe that this change should be revoked and bike riding on bridleways has become such a problem it should become a criminal offense.

An excellent post.

marplerambler

  • Guest
Re: Horseriders attempt to destroy Chadkirk Chapel grounds
« Reply #11 on: January 20, 2015, 05:16:23 PM »
I started this email because I feared that construction of a bridleway and changes to accommodate horses at Chadkirk would result in the destruction of the site but I fear only one thing more than horses and that is mountain bikes.

Horses and walkers generally peacefully co-exist. Both go slowly up and down hills. A much greater fear lurked at the back of my mind and that is mountain bikers.

This real problem is highlighted when you consider the considerable danger  that walkers and riders face face from madmen on bikes on bridleways who visit in huge numbers to cycle down steep descents such as on the Pennine Bridleway from just east of Peep-O-Day, just east of the summit of the Hayfield to Chapel road and the descent from Lantern Pike to Birch Vale. Some mountain bikers treat these routes as walls of death for high speed descent with absolutely no regard for other users. The road bikes we had in 1968 when usage of bicycles on bridleways became legal could not descend these rough tracks at speed. Mountain bikes are now designed to take these descents at great speed and many mountain bikers now expect that pedestrians or horses should not be obstructing their speedy descent and make no attempt to slow down as they speed down these routes.

A similar problem exists with mountain bikers bombing down the steep footpath from the canal towpath to Chadkirk. I believe that a new bridleway at Chadkirk will exacerbate this problem by encouraging even more mountain bikers to illegally use the public footpath along the canal and the public footpath from the canal down to Chadkirk. There are drainage problems on this route which has already been torn to shreds by mountain bikes. A bridleway to the Chadkirk Chapel may well encourage even more bikers to use the canal towpath

The change to highway law in 1968 allowing cycling on bridleways was well intentioned but the long-term unforeseen consequence has been the creation of a much more dangerous environment for pedestrians and horses and I now believe that this change should be revoked and bike riding on bridleways has become such a problem it should become a criminal offense.


CTCREP

  • Guest
Re: Horseriders attempt to destroy Chadkirk Chapel grounds
« Reply #10 on: January 20, 2015, 12:40:02 PM »
Henrietta says :- Rather than adopting an attitude of "I don't like it. Get rid of it" and stamping your metaphoric foot, why not get involved in the process. Put forward some sensible suggestions to the planners that will help make the plans work for everyone..

I thought offering my idea of creating new Horse Only routes through fields already used by horses was a sensible idea. You may not think so, however already in Cheshire there is a landowner who originally sold turf. Once this became no longer profitable he then got a considerable grant to make a footpath around the fields. Oddly enough this was only for the benefit of walkers. As the nearest significant cluster of dwellings is about 2 miles away, for most it meant driving there just to walk round a field when Cheshire has innumerable footpaths already. Had it been a Horse Only track that would have been far more sensible as then the riders could have ridden in any manner they chose particularly as many horse riders already have the transport to get there if necessary.

I am sure many of those who want to bring back Fox Hunting are more interested in galloping across the fields than the actual killing of the fox.The Countryside Alliance claim fox hunting etc benefits the rural communities. I suggest this is only in a few limited areas. How much more benefit could be created if they supported this idea which could provide horse only trails between villages etc with the opportunity for more B&Bs and all that is necessary to support a Horse Touring industry.

There are those interested in the Flora and Fauna.  They want to encourage farmers to provide Conservation Corridors for the benefit of wildlife etc. If these were also horse trails then I am sure the occasional passing horse is unlikely to disturb the wildlife and may even encourage it.

Many of you will have heard of Sustrans who we have to thank for the Connect2 route between Marple and Chadkirk and which benefits everyone. SUSTRANS developed from a cycling campaigning group in Bristol that persuaded the relevant councils to create a cycle friendly route between Bristol and Bath. SUSTRANS now caters for everyone including horse riders and, for example, it claims to have benefited the North East to the sum of £13 million pounds a year. We thank them for the Trans Pennine Trail, although persuading Councils to profit by it by improving facilities and creating a real Tourist route will take some time. Any money available should be used to upgrade the route between Chadkirk and Stockport for not only those who may want to commute to work or the shops by bicycle, but also people using the Trans Pennine Trail to enable them to visit Chadkirk and Marple etc.

I suggest the horse riding fraternity should think big and join those really interested in catering for the countryside to create a new industry that would really benefit everyone and not, as in this instance, try to take over whatever peaceful footpaths we already have.

My login is Henrietta

  • Guest
Re: Horseriders attempt to destroy Chadkirk Chapel grounds
« Reply #9 on: January 17, 2015, 10:08:26 PM »
I first read about this on an alternative web site. It was stated, amongst other things, that it would benefit cyclists and that horse riders had few areas in which to ride.  Here is my comment:-

I fully recognise that people with horses want to be able to ride further, but I also recognise that horses on footpaths, even if it is called a bridleway, generally cause surface erosion etc making the route unpleasant for the majority of other users. ( in this instance I consider the idea that it would be beneficial to cyclists shows a marked lack of knowledge of cycling and certainly shouldn't be part of the claim). In this area there are many fields dedicated to catering for horses, surely it would be beneficial to the riders if the landowners got together to create horse only trails linking these fields and so the riders would then have the freedom to ride as they wish without the fear of colliding with pedestrians etc.

I have to correct you here. A path designated as a footpath is never a bridleway. Horses are not allowed on footpaths. The right of access on a public footpath normally only extends to users on foot (there may be other unrecorded rights on certain footpaths as well), so there is usually no right to cycle or ride a horse on a public footpath. However, it is not a criminal offence to do so, unless there is a traffic order or bylaw in place specifically - instead it is a "civil wrong" to ride a bicycle or a horse on a public footpath, and action could be taken by the landowner for trespass or nuisance by the user. On the other hand, walkers ARE allowed on bridleways as are cyclists but cyclists using a bridleway are obliged to give way to users on foot or on horseback. Instead of raising a hoo-ha about horses on bridleways perhaps it would solve the problem if walkers were barred from bridleways as horses are from footpaths?

In fact, new bridleways are usually arranged so as to be both horse- and walker-friendly. The new(ish)bridleway in Simmondley, Glossop running from Green Lane along the route of the old railway line towards Broadbottom is divided into an area down one side for horses and on the other side for walkers and you will find that most newly established bridleways have this facility (for example, the parts of the Trans-Pennine Trail that are shared between walkers and horses, are arranged like this). The area for horses is usually grass or a soft surface and the walkers area is gravel. If the projected bridleway at Chadkirk was arranged like this there should be no problem.

On most bridleways, walk, trot and canter are allowed but there are some bridleways where walk and trot only are permitted (eg in Reddish Vale). Again this could be a requirement for the projected bridleway at Chadkirk

What it comes down to is the sensible use of bridleways by all users. Horse riders should not endanger other users by riding dangerously (and should never be riding a horse they cannot fully control) and should limit their paces to those where they know they can pull up quickly and safely in an emergency. Walkers should not rush up to horses waving their arms and shouting (I promise you, this happens. Even my placid, well-behaved horse is a bit disconcerted by this one!) and they should have their dogs and children under control. Cyclists shouldn't cycle furiously too close to walkers, dogs or horses, bearing in mind that the sudden approach of the hum of the bicycle chain/wheels can startle even the most sensible horse or dog into unexpected behaviour.

Sadly, there is no legislating for idiots using any form form of perambulation but don't tar everyone with the same brush.

Rather than adopting an attitude of "I don't like it. Get rid of it" and stamping your metaphoric foot, why not get involved in the process. Put forward some sensible suggestions to the planners that will help make the plans work for everyone.

Harry

  • Guest
Re: Horseriders attempt to destroy Chadkirk Chapel grounds
« Reply #8 on: January 17, 2015, 10:05:38 PM »
I fully recognise that people with horses want to be able to ride further, but I also recognise that horses on footpaths, even if it is called a bridleway, generally cause surface erosion etc ......

There seems to be a little confusion here. So lets clarify:

A footpath is a thoroughfare intended for the use of pedestrians and not for use by motorised vehicles, cycles or horses.

A bridleway is a path originally created for horses, but generally may be also used by pedestrians and cyclists.

Even the CTC web site states 'Many footpaths are better for cycling than many bridleways – but, in law, cyclists are only permitted to use the latter.'.

My login is Henrietta

  • Guest
Re: Horseriders attempt to destroy Chadkirk Chapel grounds
« Reply #7 on: January 17, 2015, 08:42:11 PM »
have you thought about the safety aspect of this if the horse person has accident on someones land and decides to sue .
Same applies in the case of a walker or a cyclist - culpability would have to be proven. Unless a landowner has deliberately arranged matters to endanger legitimate users of a right of way (whether it be horse riders, cyclists or walkers) it's unlikely that a case could be brought successfully. For example, some time ago there was an accident on the main Glossop-Marple road in Charlesworth involving a speeding car running into a horse and rider killing the horse and badly injuring the rider. Any claim would have been against the driver of the car not against the "owners" of the road.

amazon

  • Guest
Re: Horseriders attempt to destroy Chadkirk Chapel grounds
« Reply #6 on: January 17, 2015, 08:07:01 PM »
I first read about this on an alternative web site. It was stated, amongst other things, that it would benefit cyclists and that horse riders had few areas in which to ride.  Here is my comment:-

I fully recognise that people with horses want to be able to ride further, but I also recognise that horses on footpaths, even if it is called a bridleway, generally cause surface erosion etc making the route unpleasant for the majority of other users. ( in this instance I consider the idea that it would be beneficial to cyclists shows a marked lack of knowledge of cycling and certainly shouldn't be part of the claim). In this area there are many fields dedicated to catering for horses, surely it would be beneficial to the riders if the landowners got together to create horse only trails linking these fields and so the riders would then have the freedom to ride as they wish without the fear of colliding with pedestrians etc.

have you thought about the safety aspect of this if the horse person has accident on someones land and decides to sue .