You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
This article https://www.cyclinguk.org/article/campaigns-guide/cycling-on-footpath-trespass
Suggests that cycling on a footpath may not actually be trespass, and that it's never been demonstrated.
One for the access campaigners amongst you!
Interesting article. I used to be an avid not cycling on the footpath rule follower. However during the first COVID lockdown where you could only exercise locally I started exploring lots of local footpaths, rather than cycling out to the Peak District. Opened up a lot of riding and I've never had any confrontation. I've carried on doing it for local rides and as per most of life try and follow Rule 1, even though I am a massive 🔔🔚 normally.
Compared that to the canal footpath which you are allowed to cycle along where people moan at you because your bell is too loud, or moan at you because you politely ask them to move out the way and why aren't you using your bell 😂
I believe our access laws date back to the ‘60s, before mountain biking was invented, and as such are hopelessly outdated. As such, when the government gets round to reviewing and updating them to take mountain biking specifically into account I’ll think about obeying them. Until then I ride with respect and politeness to other users and have only had a few problems.
What's really interesting is the reversal of the legal argument, from whether cycling is allowed as a "natural accompaniament" to walking, to whether 9r not the cycling causes a nuisance, thus making it trespass.
It feels ridiculous that someone needs to be taken to court to figure it out....
I knew it had never been legally established.
I'm lucky and locally don't often need to use cheeky footpaths. When I do, I make damn sure I respect other users, never go faster than I can see is safe to stop in, pull over when necessary and don't get cocky on the very rare occasions I'm challenged. To be fair, how I ride on bridleways.
Cyclists on paths shared with pedestrians (and horses) are the equivalent of drivers sharing roads with cyclists. The hierarchy of vulnerable users applies, I don't want to be the cycling equivalent of an Audi driving bellend.
our access laws date back to the ‘60s, before mountain biking was invented
LOLOLOL. Nobody rode a bicycle on a path before 1960.
scotroutes
Full Member
our access laws date back to the ‘60s, before mountain biking was inventedLOLOLOL. Nobody rode a bicycle on a path before 1960.
To be fair, he didn't actually specify which century...😉
There’s a few things pertinent to this thread.
The access legislation is way out of date in England and Wales and needs a review. Some good sustainable double tracks are footpaths and some boggy quagmires are bridleways.
There’s broadly 2 types of cycling I always think - heads up and being prepared to stop or heads down and going like the clappers. The first is prob ok for any footway, the second mostly not.
I think the evolution of mountain bikes hasn’t helped our cause. When I started mountain biking 30 yrs ago it was really like going for a walk with a bike. You picked your way down steep rock gardens slowly and skillfully (sometimes) because you had no suspension and you had to. Now with your massive travel, disc braked enduro sled you can get down same rock garden at a considerable speed. This is all fine at a trail centre but it’s not a good look on a potentially shared path such as a bridle way or even footpath. For some non cyclists such as horse riders, walkers and some cyclists this isn’t that far away from someone on a scrambler hooning about. I don’t think it helps with the better access debate.
We’ve got people going for a ride with a load of tools and expecting to build gap jumps in other peoples woodlands and the like. I’m pretty sure that doesn’t help either.
Im all for more access to the countryside on my bike, and even on foot but I guess it needs to come with some responsibility if we want it to work.
I was only thinking the other day how absurd the concept is in England and Wales after a few year living north of the border now.
The other twist I always like to throw in to the bridleway/footpath chat is who it's written for. It's about the types of mode if transport a land owner both has to accept and has to provision for. That is all. It's nothing to do with what someone on foot is entitled to expect to share a right of way with. After all, you might be sharing it with tractors, or the landowners own cars, bikes, whatever they have given themselves permission to use on their own land. Those other members of the public have zero right to give you grief. They of course could inform the land owner and they could give you grief but that's different. I used to run a mountain bike club at a school and on short sessions would use a loop around the school grounds that included a section of public footpath on our own land. Occasional complaints from rambler members of the public would go to the bursar who was at pains to point out their fundamental misunderstanding of the provisions.
There’s very little the landowner can do once you’re off their land.
Nor is there particularly much they can do if you’re on it, apart from ask you to leave.
I’m lucky and locally don’t often need to use cheeky footpaths. When I do, I make damn sure I respect other users, never go faster than I can see is safe to stop in, pull over when necessary and don’t get cocky on the very rare occasions I’m challenged. To be fair, how I ride on bridleways.
+1 this. Respect and understanding that a cyclist coming at a pedestrian at anything above walking pace (3-5mph) is scary to most people. But treat people with respect, do the whole overly cheery hello nonsense, and everyone's on their way happy
The whole way various types of paths are designated is a nonsense.
The basically asked the landowner what the path was. This is why you get bridleways that turn into footpaths for no apparent reason. Its completely beyond stupid. Its sometimes quite hard decide what tracks you can and can't ride (in theory)
It's just having common courtesy isn't it, there's lots of local footpaths near me and I'll ride them for a warmup/eek out extra miles before making my way up to the woods where all the trails are.
As nice as it is to get a new PR on strava for the footpath segments its rarely empty and just requires slowing right down and letting people know your coming/passing particularly if they've got dogs, I've never had any real issues just mutual thankyous from me for letting me past and from them for me slowing down and not blasting past them causing them to jump, the issues I have had is with people wearing massive noise cancelling headphones walking in the middle of the path. I own some of these myself and if wearing them whilst walking the dog which is rare in of it's self as I like to hear the cows mooing and birds chirping, I always have the ambient noise mode turned on so I can still hear what's going on around me.
On one of my local cinder tracks Saturday just gone which sees heavy cycling and walking traffic, I rode up behind someone wearing airpods and I said on your right, nothing, I said it again and nothing, I yelled it out loud enough for the people 20m infront of him to hear me and move to the side but still from him no response, had no choice but to gently swerve around him when there was space, I was probably going 6/7mph and he completely jumped out of his skin. And I'm thinking well yeah what do you expect? Why go for a nice walk in nature just to listen to stormzy or some other similar sounding crap I could hear blasting from his airpods as I rode past and then act surprised when someone rides past you on a route very commonly used by cyclists? Utter lack of self awareness
I was thinking about this at the weekend when I was confronted by a load of "No bikes" signs and a load of footpath signs that had been ripped out of the side of the path to discourage even that use. The path used to be a railway line FFS.
Then I was stopped at a gate to open it later on and it had a sign on it listing all the funders of the AONB. I looked up and all I could see was the mess that is grouse moorland. It's a great place to ride your bike, beautiful if you ignore the industrialised nature of the land use, but it's not even remotely natural.
The two thoughts are heavily intertwined, there's huge hostility from the local land owners towards anyone using the paths, let alone bikes and you can see the history of this, just by looking at the maps and comparing it to where horses used to pull trucks.
Utter lack of self awareness
I has a similar experience with a runner, completely oblivious to her surroundings, running along the TPT headphones on, middle of the path, more and more bell ringing, until I was more or less weaving from side to side trying to make my way past her. She jumping to one side when she realised and started with the effing and jeffing I think my parting words were "Pretend you have to share the space..." I didn't wait for a reply TBH.
On paths, I just ride where I want, I'm polite, I slow up for other users and I will avoid some stuff on weekends, especially during the busier times. I've rarely had confrontations, and I have had that experience on BW as well, so I just expect some folks just don't like other folk enjoying the countryside in a different way to them. These people are best ignored.
Finally, Don't give Ramblers any money, they are not on your side.
I was confronted by a load of “No bikes” signs [ ] The path used to be a railway line FFS.
There's one that I use that used to be a pack-horse trail that some busy body has put up "no mountain bikes" all along it the trail is literally flag stones across an otherwise empty moorland
Idiots
I was confronted by a load of “No bikes” signs
Encountered one of those in the Chilterns near West Wycombe - it's a land rover track that passes a house then turns into a tarmac drive. I'd ridden it before with no bother but last time I rode it there was a gate by the house plastered in no cycling signs, and as I went through I spotted someone in the garden of the house so opted to push past it to avoid conflict. Got berated with "Thank you for pushing but I bet you didn't push the other 3K of the footpath". Sometimes you can't win.
I make damn sure I respect other users, never go faster than I can see is safe to stop in, pull over when necessary and don’t get cocky on the very rare occasions I’m challenged. To be fair, how I ride on bridleways.
Cyclists on paths shared with pedestrians (and horses) are the equivalent of drivers sharing roads with cyclists. The hierarchy of vulnerable users applies, I don’t want to be the cycling equivalent of an Audi driving bellend
This. And, of course, this:
There’s broadly 2 types of cycling I always think – heads up and being prepared to stop or heads down and going like the clappers. The first is prob ok for any footway, the second mostly not.
I think the evolution of mountain bikes hasn’t helped our cause. When I started mountain biking 30 yrs ago it was really like going for a walk with a bike. You picked your way down steep rock gardens slowly and skillfully (sometimes) because you had no suspension and you had to. Now with your massive travel, disc braked enduro sled you can get down same rock garden at a considerable speed. This is all fine at a trail centre but it’s not a good look on a potentially shared path such as a bridle way or even footpath. For some non cyclists such as horse riders, walkers and some cyclists this isn’t that far away from someone on a scrambler hooning about. I don’t think it helps with the better access debate.
We’ve got people going for a ride with a load of tools and expecting to build gap jumps in other peoples woodlands and the like. I’m pretty sure that doesn’t help either.
Im all for more access to the countryside on my bike, and even on foot but I guess it needs to come with some responsibility if we want it to work.
It's the Durham Dales AONB, specifically the Muggleswick Estate, the sign is at the Parkhead Cafe.
I was on the highest railway in England, the bit that was signed No Bikes I think would likely have been incorporated into the C2C route decades ago if it wasn't a footpath.
Rule #1 is the most important one to know.
I'm fascinated by the motivation of those who want to stop and argue with you and how little they know about what it is they're arguing about.
within 5 miles of my house I've met
1. The person who said "the council" had banned cycling on that mountain, but couldn't name the local authority.
2. The person who didn't know what a bridlepath was or that they were on one, but I was still in the wrong.
3. The person who had never heard of a towpath permit when shown one.
4. the person who was unaware that the landowner of a path was Sustrans, when threatening to report me to the landowner.
5. The person who's response to me handing them the litter they'd just dropped was "you shouldn't be riding here".
6. The person who'd never heard of NCN and looked at me like I'd made something up when I pointed out the NCN46 signage a few metres away.
7. The person who was sure I was wrong to cycle without a bell on a certain undesignated old mining track, and would not accept that neither of us particularly had an absolute right to be there, but neither was either of us doing any harm, so no problem, enjoy the sunny day.
Had a couple of "not a bridleway" idiots in Scotland. OK to be fair one of them was within 60km of the border so may have been lost. The other was on a signposted bike route.
I don't get the passion some footpaths get for keeping cyclists and/or horse riders off them. While it is pleasant enough looking to one side, turn your head to the other direction and it's literally next to a business park with a chuffing great factory or two next to it!!!
It avoids a longer route using busy roads but no, cyclists and horse riders must not use it and face prosecution for seeking a safer and more pleasant route to travel.
I’ve been told by a red trousered gammon faced man that I’m breaking the law by cycling without a bell, when I rode past him because he was blocking the whole road with his dog on an extending lead.
It would surely make it easier for landowners if this daft complication was removed.
A public footpath is a highway and hence a public place. So the public have a right of access – presumably on the basis that if there is a public right of passage the owner clearly cannot enjoy the exclusive enjoyment of the land. There is no logical basis for believing that the right of access to a footpath should be limited to access on foot. Rather the issue is whether use is reasonable.
It's an interesting one really, they're asserting that there's never been a legal challenge to someone riding a bicycle on a footpath nor a case where someone has sought legal acceptance of their right to use a bicycle on a footpath? So aside from the name "Footpath" there's not much to say that they have to be exclusively for use by people on foot.
So footpaths are just another form of "Highway" and thus until some form of updated legislation clarifies access rules and/or a case is brought to set a precedent nobody can really stop you riding along them... Right?
Rule #1 is the most important one to know.
But mostly ^^This^^.
All the people confidently telling you which rights you don't get because you are on a bicycle are largely just feeling a bit impotent and having an outburst at a representative of an outlier group (as they see it) just makes them feel a little better.
Of course you don't really want them to start pulling on that thread just in case the beautifully vague set of access "rules" we currently enjoy get changed, and not in our favour. Better to politely disagree or trundle on your way than to stop and really argue back, you might just trigger a letter writing campaign by the wrong, determined individual...
Well it's an interesting argument, but probably not one I'll repeat to the next busybody who challenges me when riding on a FP.
Anyone who's still a C UK member, you might want to ask them what they're planning to do regarding access - I thought they'd lost interest TBH.
It’s an interesting one really, they’re asserting that there’s never been a legal challenge to someone riding a bicycle on a footpath nor a case where someone has sought legal acceptance of their right to use a bicycle on a footpath? So aside from the name “Footpath” there’s not much to say that they have to be exclusively for use by people on foot.
So footpaths are just another form of “Highway” and thus until some form of updated legislation clarifies access rules and/or a case is brought to set a precedent nobody can really stop you riding along them… Right?
Again, it needs to be spun around. A bridleway needs to be maintained and have fixtures and fixings to make egress by horse (and now bike too) possible. So gates not styles for example. I guess as a landowner who currently had as footpath across it, you might be concerned that an 'upgrade' to bridleway (or just binning both and having one term) might also mean an a change in what you are expected to provide.
A tiny(tiny) plus to the Footpath/bridleway system - you pretty much always know a bridleway is ridable when planning a route on a map. In Scotland without that delineation I've definitely been caught out more. Double dashed equals landrover/estate/forestry track and all good; but single dashed can cover a lot of stuff ridable on horse or bike but a load that isn't too.
A public footpath is a highway and hence a public place. So the public have a right of access – presumably on the basis that if there is a public right of passage the owner clearly cannot enjoy the exclusive enjoyment of the land. There is no logical basis for believing that the right of access to a footpath should be limited to access on foot. Rather the issue is whether use is reasonable.
Unfortunately, this is all a bit of a jumble of legal concepts, and the links in this chain don't actually lead to each other.
The author is right to point out that the public's access to footpaths is broader than litetally only walking along it from A to B, and includes whatever stuff that society generally agrees is reasonable use of a footpath (stopping for a rest, taking a pram etc). But what you individually think is reasonable is irrelevant, and the reality is that society just doesn't regard cycling as something that is a reasonable use of a footpath.
Never mind foot vs bike.
The whole land access and ownership is centuries out of date - remember much land was basically stolen from the masses and given to royalist cronies over centuries.
And that needs to be corrected from the top down - 1st get rid on the monarchy.. and bring back hugest swathes of land into common ownership and use.
We were riding yesterday on a footpath on the chatsworth estate. They had a horse trail on so the path was diverted. The estate staff happily pointed us in the direction of the diversion to my very pleasant suprise
Well it’s an interesting argument, but probably not one I’ll repeat to the next busybody who challenges me when riding on a FP.
My standard reply is 'I don't have a bridle and I'm using my feet'.
you pretty much always know a bridleway is ridable
If only!
My standard reply is ‘I don’t have a bridle and I’m using my feet’.
Mine is "Are we really going to spoil our days in the countryside arguing the rights and wrongs of access laws?"
and the reality is that society just doesn’t regard cycling as something that is a reasonable use of a footpath.
It's interesting though that the Ramblers, who you would've thought should leap at the chance to have a definite ruling, have so far declined to take a case to court to actually see one way or the other. I think they are both content with the current haze, and have probably received advice to the effect that it's not as clear cut as they'd like, and a court case may not go the way they want. I find that most folks generally either don't care, or assume it's OK for you to be there (like them) very few folks in reality have a grasp of access laws, and those will find something to complain about regardless of the legality of access
But what you individually think is reasonable is irrelevant, and the reality is that society just doesn’t regard cycling as something that is a reasonable use of a footpath.
At the moment! Things change though, and the more people ride on footpaths (adhering to rule no.1 obvs) the perception may just start to change...
Hiya,
There's a Woodland near where I live in North Somerset used to ride it all of the time, with no problem. Horse riders use it. During lock down, the house leading to the trail changed hands ;-( The new owner, now sits outside and shouts at cyclists attempting to use what was used by locals for years. Doesn't seem to mind horse riders that did far more damage to the paths.
My friend living in one of the farms nearby openly calls the new owner a tosser...
The new house owner also put a speed sign outside house to remind people of the speed limit, rumor has it the local yooths use it to measure how fast they can go through that section 😉
Oh well land of the tolerant long gone...
JeZ
But what you individually think is reasonable is irrelevant, and the reality is that society just doesn’t regard cycling as something that is a reasonable use of a footpath.
Isn't the point though, that nobody has ever ruled (legally) on whether or not cycling on a footpath is 'reasonable' or not.
So until society formally defines it as reasonable or unreasonable it's remains a bit of a "Schrödinger's Right of Way" discussion; cycling on a footpath is simultaneously Allowed and Banned...
I know it's weak, especially as the commonly accepted understanding is that cycling on a FP is "illegal" and that if someone were to test how reasonable bike access on FPs is we'd more than likely loose, but there it is.
Again, it needs to be spun around. A bridleway needs to be maintained and have fixtures and fixings to make egress by horse (and now bike too) possible. So gates not styles for example. I guess as a landowner who currently had as footpath across it, you might be concerned that an ‘upgrade’ to bridleway (or just binning both and having one term) might also mean an a change in what you are expected to provide.
I think I've said it before but that might well be the place to give a concession if FP riding were ever to be recognised as acceptable, yes you can take a bicycle or a pony down it but the land owner should have no increase in their burden of maintenance or access furniture, so ride that FP at your own risk, you might encounter a style or kissing gate, a compromise position that bicycles can generally deal with fine, but Horse riders (and green laners?) would find more challenging. all part of the discussion.
I know some of the local woods near me have all sorts of "cycling Prohibited" signs up that I breeze past frequently, there's no signed prohibition of equestrian pursuits and steaming deposits from them all over the Land Rover width paths, the locals are all part of the pony mafia, so in my book its all permissive bridal ways unless and until horses are banned.
Anyone who’s still a C UK member, you might want to ask them what they’re planning to do regarding access – I thought they’d lost interest TBH.
They still seem very active at local and national level. Not their fault that they have less clout than the CLA with the current government.
I could almost have stopped at this paragraph:
If this is so, then the owner has the right to remove the trespasser. This would be a civil matter between the owner and the cyclist and nobody else would be concerned
9 times out of 10 or more, any comments I've received whilst riding on a FP have come from someone other than the landowner, usually some Vigilante Red Sock type determined to ruin their day. I wonder whether these folk take a similar interest in other matters, like shouting at speeding cars or apprehending shop lifters?
Then you’ve got PROW scams like this wholesale reclassification into footpaths in order to reduce the maintenance burden…
https://path-watch.com/2021/04/20/the-great-prow-swindle/
Our local council has stopped taking requests for PROW alterations, they are 10 years behind dealing with them!
But what you individually think is reasonable is irrelevant, and the reality is that society just doesn’t regard cycling as something that is a reasonable use of a footpath.
Does it not? Having spent my life in small towns and villages, it has always struck me that nobody cares where you ride, and that riding on a footpath is seen as a perfectly normal and very reasonable thing to do. The idea of not using them would appear ridiculous to many.
It's only when you head out into the hills where you have rich land owners with claim to vast swaithes of the countryside where it becomes an issue.
It's more of an issue to me that bridleways, footpaths etc just stop randomly in the middle of a field.
Ramblers...have so far declined to take a case to court to actually see one way or the other.
This doesn't mean anything. Who would they be suing? On what basis? And why would anyone chuck money at attacking a fringe legal theory?
The village I grew up in has got horrible no-tices on just about every path I used to ride as a kid. Then nobody bothered, but obviously planet of the busybodies now.
Mind I think they are too busy fighting The War on "Wild" Swimming to care.
i ride wherever i want nowadays. i ride sensibly and stop if needed for walkers. i use a bell to let people know i am coming.
and if i am ever challenged i stop and ask the person ' and what business of yours is it'.
i seems to stop the conversation rather quickly.
This doesn’t mean anything. Who would they be suing? On what basis? And why would anyone chuck money at attacking a fringe legal theory?
The Ramblers are more than happy to get to court cases that they see as part of protecting their members interests, and they're very keen on reducing cyclists rights, See this document which tells their members how to block ROW becoming legal routes for cyclists, I could well imagine that they've investigated how they'd go about resolving the matter to their members interests, on what for them isn't a fringe legal theory, but the central basis of their existence.
It’s an interesting one really, they’re asserting that there’s never been a legal challenge to someone riding a bicycle on a footpath nor a case where someone has sought legal acceptance of their right to use a bicycle on a footpath?
The late simonfbarnes of this parish was well known for leading Bogtrotter MTB rides on whatever trails he damn well wanted in and around the Lake District and various parts of Yorkshire/Peak District as well on occasions.
He certainly had the occasional run in with grumpy "you shouldn't be riding here" types but in spite of huge amounts of (his own!) photographic evidence that such trespasses has been committed, neither he nor the club ever once had any follow up from Ramblers Association, landowners or anyone else.
The local MTB access campaign group tried to get him on side but he didn't give a shit about the classification of a trail. If it was rideable, he'd ride it so he had no interest in campaigning for more access. 😂
The Ramblers are more than happy to get to court cases that they see as part of protecting their members interests, and they’re very keen on reducing cyclists rights
The members are anti-cyclist, but I was told the officials would be supportive if their membership wasn't so unreasonable.
If it was rideable, he’d ride it so he had no interest in campaigning for more access. 😂
Indeed - I always just wished he'd have modified that to "If it was sustainably rideable". Some of the phohos used to not just show the evidence of them being there, but also the impact a club's worth of wheels can do in the wrong weather conditions. Veered outwith rule 1 at times imo. But I guess the club's name was a pretty big indicator to their attitude to gloop!
They still seem very active at local and national level. Not their fault that they have less clout than the CLA with the current government.
It's fair to say the govts of recent years have meant there's no realistic prospect of progress at the national level, and I don't have direct insight any more, but C UK appeared to have given up trying to influence toward large scale RoW reform.
Instead they were all about new long-distance trails.
Trails for Wales is still stalled AFAIK and it's slim pickings here...
https://www.cyclinguk.org/offroadcampaigns
I know it's easy to snipe, but I do still think C UK are best-placed to organise and influence on the issue. It's just personnel issues and other priorities seemed to have totally taken the wind out of their sails.
he didn’t give a shit about the classification of a trail.
Reflects my attitude, I mostly ride alone, so it's less impactful, but the access rights in Scotland reveal how strange the current situation is in England and Wales, and I can remember that one of the deciding factors in the failure of expanding Welsh access was lobbying by the Ramblers who were opposed.
The members are anti-cyclist, but I was told the officials would be supportive if their membership wasn’t so unreasonable.
Hmmm, Their magazines comes to the surgery (I think one of the previous GPs was a member, long gone) and not a issue goes past without the rights issue being raised in the letters pages written by "angry of Kent" . If the leadership is in fact more supportive of expanding access, then they aren't doing much to change their members views.
I'd be interested in a definitive decision about it. This was me a year or so ago, not riding my bike, but pushing it along a footpath.
Can I just check with those who probably know better?
Am I allowed to walk along a footpath in England pushing my bike?
I think this might have come up before, but I’d like to know for sure.
Just had a massive row while walking and cycling the dog with a local farmer family who physically barged me and hit my bike with fencing pliers and generally lost their shit just because I was walking my bike and my dog through their land.
They had loads of angry signs on the gate saying no bikes ridden or pushed but are they actually allowed to say that?
Happy to be proved wrong but I thought that it was ok as long as I wasn’t riding?
It probably isn’t. This is England after all. ****** up to the last. 😠
I really hate stuff like this. I honestly can’t understand what harm they think I’m doing by walking along wheeling my bike. I just can’t understand how folks can summon up enough angst to go to the lengths they did when I’m literally doing no harm. I asked them this but they said it didn’t matter. I guess it doesn’t 🙄
I remember that @kayak23, 3 women was it not? Anything happen at all? Have you been back?
Going back up a few posts, the reason the Ramblers haven't taken a case is that they have no legal standing, only the landowner could bring a case on this issue. Landowners generally have sufficient means to deal with issues - most aren't overly bothered I expect, the rest seem fairly happy to intimidate one way or another and keep most people away.
Change to access Law is interesting, the problem is that it's not really compelling and reliant on a consultation process that the Ramblers etc would organise around and make sure they got the result they wanted rather than the result that suits everyone else.
I think to be successful there are two routes, one is to organise local people to sit down with the map and identify all the bits of footpath that are wrong, but also show how those changes open up the countryside for people. Identify 5, 10 and 15 mile loops that become available to people living in x, y and z and how these routes can impact on health and fitness.
The second is complete reform, as part of the post-Brexit farm funding regime - Identify the bits of trail that can make the biggest difference in the same way and fund their creation and make upgrading footpaths to bridleways a part of that.
So a mix of new trails and upgraded access that's targeted locally at the most useful bits, rather than a blanket national approach that does have genuine issues in some locations. With funding to support.
You would also want to consider ongoing obligations on the land-owners and how those can be minimised and establishing a process that allows local people to say, "This trail is great, and that trail is great, but wouldn't it be even greater if we could link them together?"
The Ramblers are more than happy to get to court cases that they see as part of protecting their members interests, and they’re very keen on reducing cyclists rights, See this document which tells their members how to block ROW becoming legal routes for cyclists, I could well imagine that they’ve investigated how they’d go about resolving the matter to their members interests, on what for them isn’t a fringe legal theory, but the central basis of their existence.
As above - the Ramblers have no basis on which to go around sticking their nose into landowners' lawsuits against trespassers (which basically never happens anyway).
But even if they did, it is a fringe legal theory, having zero academic weight or any case law to support the proposition that cycling is a reasonable use of using a footpath. Is the guy even a lawyer? You'd be mad to spend money worrying about it.
Change to access Law is interesting, the problem is that it’s not really compelling and reliant on a consultation process that the Ramblers etc would organise around and make sure they got the result they wanted rather than the result that suits everyone else.
I'm not convinced that anyone really wants to go down that route.
It's very messy, very time consuming and for what? There are two outcomes:
1) it would formalise what already happens to a greater or lesser degree where some people will simply ride it whatever
2) it would wake up landowners/Government to the "commoners" abusing the system that dates back to feudal times and was essentially put in place to legally allow rich people to nick a shedload of land and then they'd find ways to put a stop to it.
The other factor is it would cost a huge amount of money that the country doesn't have for relatively little in the way of direct benefits - sure there's vague stuff like "more people travelling around the countryside means more spend in local/rural economies" which landowners will counter with "more people travelling across my land means more spend to maintain the land".
Based on the current shower in Government, I'd bet on Option 2 being the more likely outcome. Don't rock the boat...
I remember that @kayak23, 3 women was it not? Anything happen at all? Have you been back?
Yeah, 3 generations of women from the farmer family.
I don't know if they ended up getting a visit by the police or not and I've not been back as it's not really a great route anyway.
Keep thinking I should though.
Just to play devils advocate really by why do we need to cycle on footpaths? I doubt ayone has ridden every bridleway, restricted bridleway BOAT and unclassified lane in their county let alone the country so why demand more. It is a touch greedy. Sadly it fits in with modern society whereby people want things that they don't need or care about, just because someone else has them. The answer that "But I want to use them" reminds me of my priamary school playground. Me, me,me.
We do have to consider the impact. Look at the appalling mess our national parks are in through over use. Look at the state of many woodland areas now that cyclists have decided that todays gratification is more important than anything else. Nice dry, useable footpaths that I knew as a kid are now bloody motorways with braking bumps, bogs and man made jumps.
Might I ask that all those who want FP opened up to cyclists also support the rights of road legal motorcyclists and drivers to do the same. After all it is the some principle that should be applied to a group that has less access to the country side. Apparently the elitists in the access groups felt that discrimination was a great idea as this activity didn't suit their own little prejudice.
You can't even play the enviro card here as anything that gets people out of their houses and into the countryside harms the environment. (Sorry we are not allowedd to to condem hypocrisy here are we) .
Finally might I ask that those who have views in the respect state their location? As usual I bet the support from this will come mostly from those who don't have to deal with the consequences be they increased foot path damage, the building of a new motorway or fast food joint or whatever development you care to mention.
Just to play devils advocate really by why do we need to cycle on footpaths?
To get from A to B (or back to A) without using roads? I mean if we extend your argument why do we need to cycle off road at all, when nobody has ridden all the roads in the UK?
without using roads
How very entitled of you 😂
why do we need to cycle on footpaths?
Why do people need to walk on them?
Just to play devils advocate really by why do we need to cycle on footpaths?
Because riding a couple of miles down a bridle path and then turning round to ride back when it magically becomes a footpath is a bit weird? Most of the categorisation of paths was done in a halfarsed way which has no resemblance to any historical usage. Where I live now there are a bunch of bridle paths, rupps and boats whereas where I used to live despite its pretty much identical historical usage is mostly footpaths.
We do have to consider the impact.
Sounds like a plan. So lets look at what sort of traffic a specific path is suited to. There are footpaths near me which are year round safe vs bridlepaths which I dont go near for half the year because they are too fragile when wet (sadly the ramblers dont agree and wreck them).
Nice dry, useable footpaths that I knew as a kid are now bloody motorways with braking bumps, bogs and man made jumps.
Manmade jumps are obviously irrelevant to the access argument. Since if you are making trails then you are going to be relaxed about the concept anyway. That said where you do live that people build jumps on footpaths as opposed to building their own trails?
Apparently the elitists in the access groups felt that discrimination was a great idea as this activity didn’t suit their own little prejudice.
Sorry the people wanting greater access are the elitists? Not the ones wanting it restricted to just them and their pals?
As usual I bet the support from this will come mostly from those who don’t have to deal with the consequences
Ah you are one of those elitists wanting to keep the land just for yourself eh? Explains a lot.
Just to play devils advocate really by why do we need to cycle on footpaths?
I don't think anyone "Needs" to ride a FP but there would be benefits (and drawbacks) to recognising a right for bicycles to use at least some FPs. Health and traffic avoidance being the obvious benefits for bicycle users. Ultimately RoWs need perioding reviewing by someone independent, without fear or favour to any of the stakeholders...
Half the issue is that footpath/bridleway designations often pre-date much of their surroundings and/or the user groups that have chopped and changed over time. RoWs were "Established" on the basis of previous general use anything from 50 to 100+ years ago. Hence our RoW network isn't really reflective of our current population or the modern means of transport people might reasonably expect to use on it. Just because Current RoWs exist as they are today, doesn't mean they have to remain unchanged for all time...
I don't think it's "Greedy" for people to want to ride a bicycle on low/no traffic paths which have long been established for use by "commoners". Obviously Rule 1 needs to be observed, in doing so some of the anticipated friction (mainly with with Ramblers?) could well be mitigated.
At the same time part of me wonders if anything does actually needs to change?
i.e. allow people to just carry on riding FPs as the Rules about doing so are already opaque and it's a 'Right' that doesn't seem to have been challenged or tested legally ever, so why disturb that situation?
The "reasonableness test" is a subjective one and context is everything;
e.g. a short 100m section of FP primarily ridden by kids as a way to avoid traffic heavy roads getting to/from school could well be deemed reasonable. Whereas cyclists using another 100m FP along the edge of a bit of woodland, that has poor drainage and gets hacked to buggery by tyres and/or hooves in winter, and also happens to run parallel to a boring, but traffic-free established bridleway could well be argued as unreasonable... The real problem is that local and national government lack the resources and/or an appropriate frameworks to actually review RoWs.
The question of whether things need to change is very location specific I think. I grew up riding bikes in the Lakes and rode wherever I wanted without any regard for classification - it was irrelevant, I caused no bother, no one was bothered.
Now I live in Durham where the Grouse lot have run-amok over decades, there are Land Rover tracks that were horse and even train tracks going back centuries, they're footpaths now and policed by people with quad bikes and shotguns. It's a huge huge area of land that is in industrial use, has the potential to provide huge benefit to walkers and bikers, but is the preserve of a small number of gun people. The grouse aren't even bothered by bikes anyway, it's the walkers with their dogs that are the problem.
Change is needed round here as you can't just ride it regardless.
Just to play devils advocate really by why do we need to cycle on footpaths?
Because it's fun and we should be able to do that which is fun and does not affect others, provided we do it in such a manner. Even besides the most obvious mis-categorisations. There's a very robust vehicle track near me that goes past a big historic castle that's now derelict. It was lived in until the 40s at least, so the access track was clearly built for cars and is still used by them, there are houses along it and it opens to the road on each side. Passable by normal cars. It's a footpath though. I was initially unsure but I've had nothing but cheery hellos from the residents and the codgers on e-bikes old enough to have seen the castle lived in, so it's hard to ascribe it to hooliganism. It forms part of a beautiful local loop with another similar footpath which is the tarmac driveway of a big country house which is now converted to flats and a gated community. Even the extremely rich residents wave and say hello as I cycle through.
If you can't move to Scotland you should move to South Wales where even if you see anyone they don't care.
why do we need to cycle on footpaths?
The real question is why do certain people have the right to exclude others from certain areas, whether they be footpaths or otherwise?
You can’t even play the enviro card here as anything that gets people out of their houses and into the countryside harms the environment
In a direct sense, yes, everything has an impact to some extent.
But the big picture suggests the opposite. We have a real problem as a society with the way the natural environment is viewed and treated, and getting people out of their houses and interacting with it is by far the most effective way of getting people to recognise the value of it, which is the key step in starting to better protect it. Conversely, telling someone they can't access it because someone with more money and power than them wants to shoot birds on it is a great way to prevent them developing any sort of interest in it that might threaten that status quo.
South Wales I was threatened by a farmer for pushing my bike on a footpath, he actually released his cows from his shed to try and scare us off!
We were only there because I'd had a smash and was walking back to the car with a bust-up knee. Going back to the original post, under those circumstances the bike was very much a natural accompaniment!
The “reasonableness test” is a subjective one and context is everything;
e.g. a short 100m section of FP primarily ridden by kids as a way to avoid traffic heavy roads getting to/from school could well be deemed reasonable. Whereas cyclists using another 100m FP along the edge of a bit of woodland, that has poor drainage and gets hacked to buggery by tyres and/or hooves in winter, and also happens to run parallel to a boring, but traffic-free established bridleway could well be argued as unreasonable…
Just to play devils advocate on this... the national park footpath that has the difficulty of a bikepark tech black and/or with a few unridable (and unsignposted, duh) sections; but would be an enjoyable recreation for about 1% of bike riders how would that fare? or worse, if an existing bridleway met that description, wuold it be downgraded?
As above – the Ramblers have no basis on which to go around sticking their nose into landowners’ lawsuits against trespassers
They're more than happy to express their views on white papers, and reply to Govt (local or national) consultations and join court cases as co-respondents that they find either supports their position, or ensure that permissions are maintained - where landowners are trying to restrict access for instance. There's no reason to think that they wouldn't be interested if a landowner decided to try to prosecute someone cycling on a footpath.
But even if they did, it is a fringe legal theory.
May very well be to most folks. It's entirely central to the Ramblers stance on protecting access rights for their members to the exclusion of other types of users. See any number of consultations that have failed to allow greater access for horse riders and cyclists over the years becasue of lobbying by Ramblers
Ramblers 'likely to oppose' allowing cycling on footpaths - BBC News
What happens when the Ramblers get themselves included as a respondent in case is that their standing isn't challenged. It's a niche area of law, but I suspect that if the other side paid enough for their Barrister they would start by challenging the Rambler's standing in the case, because they don't have any.
so why demand more. It is a touch greedy.
There's no good reason not to permit most users the most access to the most countryside that can be accommodated. The experience of Scotland and every other country in the world that permits shared use demonstrates this. The conflict; when it does arise, happens for no other reason other than because of the separate definition to which users can point to. If it didn't exist people would be forced to accommodate each other.
Just to play devils advocate on this… the national park footpath that has the difficulty of a bikepark tech black and/or with a few unridable (and unsignposted, duh) sections; but would be an enjoyable recreation for about 1% of bike riders how would that fare? or worse, if an existing bridleway met that description, wuold it be downgraded?
Who knows, Play Devil's Avocado all you like it's all just wild speculation about stuff that's not happening.
As I see it there's really 3 basic options and all come with various up/downsides:
1- Do nothing: All extant RoWs remain as currently designated, no change or review of their status' and the various user groups can keep on sniping at each other, landowners can continue to not bother going to court to get cycling on FPs banned and instead rely on our very British respect for 'rules' and observation of signage to prevent most plebs on wheels from trundling across their land...
2- Proper case by case reviews of all RoW across England and Wales by Local Authorities: Very time and resource intensive, there's no real framework or set criteria for doing it on such a massive scale, it will be difficult to ensure all interested parties are fully/equally engaged with and represented, different stakeholders will inevitably be variously pleased/pissed off at the variable outcomes.
3- Adopt the 'Scottish model': much less time intensive, lots of people will still be pleased/pissed off but it won't cost as much. It will need to come with some public campaigns and probably a bit of legislation to try and get the great unwashed to comply with Rule 1.
My personal choice would be for option #3 but failing that I'd settle for #1 TBH, as I just don't trust our public bodies and/or the wider public to behave like adults or dedicate the money/time to achieve option #2...
Country estate one side of me has strictly no bicycles signage up. I can't really figure out why, doesn't strike me as an obvious route, but I have walked down one of the FP and it presented as some challenging cheek. Plus it's owned by some famous people and from what I gather there have been access issues over time.
There's a FP alongside the estate which converts into a Restricted Byway, which then goes across the same estate. Never ridden that but will speak to the farmer when I see him next and see if he's OK with me riding it. Best to keep your neighbours onside.
Conversely, the nearest large woods is about 3sqm with no habitation at all, part of a 5000 acre estate. Relatively few ROW but fair game on any paths as far as I'm concerned. If there's a shoot on I'd probably steer clear though.
Interesting isn't it how our attitudes are influenced unconsciously I did a 3 day bike packing trip recently all on legal rights of way and then wild camped illegally twice...
This article appears to have disappeared from the Cycling UK site and now redirects instead to https://www.cyclinguk.org/article/cycling-guide/where-can-i-cycle-off-road . I guess it was a bit too far on the cheeky side.
That's really annoying... I think it was first published back in 2014 or something, and dissappeared shortly after then too.. Frustrating really, I wish I'd downloaded a version for reference!
Cheers,
Keith
This article appears to have disappeared from the Cycling UK site and now redirects instead
Luckily the Internet Archive exists! Anyone like me who is late to the party and would like to know what it said should be able to find it here: