‍♀️ Homeowners Refuse to Let Marathon Cyclists Cut Through Their Land – Were They Right?

Imagine buying your dream home with 15 acres of land, only to find out that an annual bike marathon expects to cut through your property. That’s exactly what happened to a couple who recently purchased their new home. They received a notice reminding them to open their gates for the upcoming marathon, but they weren’t having any of it. ‍♀️ Let’s dive into the story and see if their decision was justified.

New Home, New Surprises

A Field Far Away

Not On Our Watch! ‍♀️

Concerns and Liability

A Surprise Omission

Taking a Stand

But It’s Tradition!

Marathon Day Arrives ‍♂️

Angry Cyclist Confrontation

Taking a Stand Against the Marathon Cyclists ‍♂️

This couple found themselves in a tough spot when they discovered that their new property was traditionally used as a shortcut for an annual bike marathon. Concerned about liability and wanting to maintain their privacy, they decided to put their foot down and keep their gates closed. Despite facing backlash from the town hall and angry cyclists, they stood their ground. But was their decision justified? Let’s see what the internet thinks of this situation…

New homeowner shares positive experience with event organizers’ respectful approach.

Sarcastic reply to tradition breakers. NTA.

NTA. Protect your property and stand your ground

Homeowners stand their ground against rude marathon cyclists. NTA.

Organizers at fault for cyclists’ route through private land. NTA.

Homeowners have valid concerns with cyclists cutting through their land. NTA.

Homeowners have the right to protect their property during marathons.

Protective homeowner scares off hot air balloonists, swears in front of toddler

Homeowners refuse to let cyclists cut through their land – NTA

NTA but stand your ground and document everything.

Cyclists need to respect property rights and trail etiquette. NTA.

Homeowners have the right to refuse access to their land. NTA

Homeowners justified in denying cyclists access to their property. NTA

Homeowners stand their ground against marathon cyclists. NTA wins!

Marathon cyclist defends fellow riders, calls out organizers for poor communication.

Homeowners defend their property rights against entitled town officials.

Respect private property. Race directors should have asked permission. NTA

User defends against being called a ‘Karen’ with humor

Homeowners have no obligation to let cyclists cut through their land ‍♂️

Property owners have the right to control their own land.

Homeowners defend property from entitled marathon cyclists ‍♂️

Homeowners defend property rights and question race shortcuts.

Homeowners have the right to protect their property and privacy.

Race organizers should have gotten proper approvals for the path. NTA.

Cyclists’ entitled behavior sparks outrage among locals

Homeowners refuse to let cyclists cut through their land due to liability risk. NTA.

Defending property rights – city should have asked first.

Town festival parking lot use shows need for communication and insurance.

Homeowners have the right to say no to late notice ‍♂️

Homeowners demand fair compensation for land use. NTA.

Homeowners refuse to let cyclists cut through their land. NTA

Homeowners defend their decision to not let cyclists cut through property.

Homeowner defends themselves with a hose, plans to install electric fence. NTA.

Homeowners have the right to refuse access to cycling race ‍♂️

Homeowners stand their ground, cyclists act entitled. NTA verdict.

Homeowners refuse cyclists, but commenter hates all cyclists. ‍♂️

User asks for more information about the event logistics.

Defending property rights with NTA and ownership emojis

Homeowners have the right to refuse marathon cyclists on property.

Property rights over tradition. NTA wins the race

Homeowners stand up to rude marathon cyclists, suggest sending bill

Homeowners stand their ground, NTA for not accommodating cyclists ‍♀️

Homeowners suggest liability waiver for cyclists to cross their property ‍♂️

Homeowners refuse cyclists on private property. NTA or ESH?

Cyclists get the NTA vote for being impossible to offend ‍♀️

Homeowners deny marathon cyclists access to their land. Commenter supports homeowners.

Homeowners stand their ground against entitled cyclists. NTA wins.

Homeowners stand their ground against entitled cyclists. NTA wins!

Organizing races requires permits and permission, don’t assume anything.

Homeowners refuse marathon cyclists, commenters side with cyclists. NTA.

Cyclists’ harassment prompts homeowner to install security cameras

Race organizers messed up big time, NTA for refusing entry

Homeowners exercise their right to refuse marathon cyclists on property. NTA

Cyclist agrees: Homeowners have right to refuse access to property

NTA stands up against verbal assault from cyclists during marathon.

Cyclist calls out entitled homeowners for refusing to reroute marathon. ‍♀️

Homeowners suggest renting land as easement and providing insurance coverage.

Cyclist-hater complains about tight shorts and penis visibility.

Landowners defend their rights against entitled cyclists.

One commenter’s bias against cyclists on country roads.

Private property rights upheld. Cyclist harassment reported to authorities. NTA.

Gatekeeping cyclists leads to name-calling and no resolution. ‍♀️

Protecting your property rights: a former farm owner’s advice.

Homeowners stand firm against marathon cyclists, NTA comment agrees.

Insurance for events like this may cover liability concerns.

Homeowners justified in denying access to cyclists. Renting space alternative.

Liability waiver: Would it change your mind about cyclists’ rights?

Landowners have the right to protect their property from liability. NTA

Homeowners have a valid concern about liability and lawsuits. NTA.

Homeowners express concern over safety of letting strangers on property.

Clever negotiation tactics for land use with a touch of humor