[Closed] Has anyone ever 'been done' for riding a cheeky trail?

Not even been frowned at but usually late and subtle about it thanks to our "leader".

Don't think you can be prosecuted, as it's a civil, not criminal 'offence'. You can only be asked to leave, and at worst be sued for 'damages' to the path, whatever that would be worth.

AFAIK - riding on a footpath would constitute trespass, which is a civil offence and not prosecutable as such, but you could be fined.

Been told off a few times by walkers but very rarely. No-one has ever mentioned getting the police involved or suing.

Yes but how on earth is someone going to give a to fine to a cyclist who is not willing to hang around and give his/her details?

Not sure it could be trespass, I was under the impression (and I'm no lawyer) that you had to cause damage in order for it to be trespassing?

Edit - a quick search online says its only criminal if its aggrivated, otherwise its civil.

Some local by-laws may well make it an offence

anyone got a link to the actual law on this? (not [url= http://www.ramblers.org.uk/info/britain/footpathlaw/footpathlaw.htm#cyclists ]somebody elses interpretation[/url] of it)

I was told off very thoroughly by the STW massive for posting pics of us riding on [url= http://www.bogtrotters.org/downloads/stanage.html ]Stanage Edge[/url], and was reported to the National Park Authority by an outraged biker, but nothing came of it (there is a byelaw with a fine of up to £500).
[url= http://148.88.53.14/rides/2006/23apr/thumb/DSC_0157_.jp g" target="_blank">http://148.88.53.14/rides/2006/23apr/thumb/DSC_0157_.jp g"/> [/img][/url]

Another time I got a stiff letter from The Lakes PA, implying that they might take out an injunction against the club chairman to prevent him using the FP past Beacon Tarn:
[url= http://148.88.53.14/rides/2005/27dec/bleapan.jp g" target="_blank">http://148.88.53.14/rides/2005/27dec/bleapan.jp g"/> [/img][/url],
but I think that would have been very expensive for them

which is a civil offence and not prosecutable as such, but you could be fined.

no, you could be sued for any damage you were proved to have caused. It's called a [b]tort[/b]

From what I understand a bicycle causes about 20p/mile of trail damage.

Coffeeking - it's trespass, but if someone was suing you for trespass they would have to establish the damage you had caused.

If this is a variant on the SFB style argument of "I can ride where I like 'cos what can they do about it?" then consider this. You won't be carted off and arrested. However access to cheeky trails can be closed off at any time. Round my way land managers block trails using stiles and fences, branches or even cut down trees. Vindictive nutters also take matters into their own hands and leave logs across the trail for you to ride into. So no, you aren't going to get arrested, but there may be other things to think about.

so no then

IIRC you can only be asked to leave private land (or footpath) by the land owner or his agent (going by the quickest way), if you are accussed of causing damage to the path, offer 'there and then' to pay compensation (£1 each?).
If you are taken to court, you have offered reasonable compensation for any damage you 'might' have caused.

If anyone other than the land owner or his agent approaches you, you can tell em to f*ck off.

If this is a variant on the SFB style argument of "I can ride where I like 'cos what can they do about it?"

It's more a matter of the meaning of land 'ownership', which confers the limited right to exploit the argricultural resources of the land but does not exclude the passage of others. In the absence of a right of way you may be liable to make good damage you cause on private land. It's still our country though.

This is pretty lazy I know but has anyone got any links to info on what you can and can't ride? I've just moved out into the country a bit more and am looking for some 'from the doorstep' riding...

It's more a matter of the meaning of land 'ownership', which confers the limited right to exploit the argricultural resources of the land but does not exclude the passage of others

A rambler once shouted at me, "Hey you, its illegall to cycle on the footpath".

Shouting back - "Thats nothing, I murdered someone here last week", seemed to shut them up.

It's still our country though.

It's not though is it? If you ripped out a fence or barrier that was stopping you from riding, it would be trespass and criminal damage.

Gary, have a look here for the "official" rules

http://www.imba.org.uk/WhereToRide/RulesOfTheTrail.html

And here for the unofficial

http://www.cheekytrails.co.uk/

You can be arrested for building a trail without permission too.

http://www.timesandstar.co.uk/1.58271

Obviously, the law is an ass and it's ridiculous to arrest people for doing something that's harmless (and even beneficial) to society. But the idea that land managers are powerless is a bit misleading - it might be true in SFB's experience but not for most people.

I'm with Barnes on this. We suffer from some of the most restrictive access to the countryside, in Yerp. Possibly the World. In other countries, such as Norway, you can ride a bike more or less anywhere, bar cultivated fields, areas with livestock with young, and within a certain distance of anyone's home. Anything else is more or less fair game.

They don't have a significant problem with damage caused by bikers (granted, less people), and they see restricting access as bizarre. Many other nations have similar, and their trails and footpaths aren't being ripped apart by cyclists.

How much damage does cycling really do anyway? I've seen landrover/tractor tracks in rural areas, that proper gouge the earth out. But that's considered necessary. Ok, but I can't see as how mountain bikes cause much more erosion than rugged soled walking boots.

That pic above; what ****ing harm would bikes actually do?

I'll ride wherever I feel it's suitable to. As SFB says, 'it's [i]our[/i] country'.

If you ripped out a fence or barrier that was stopping you from riding, it would be trespass and criminal damage.

I've never felt any need to do this. We did once break a fence on the Ribble, but it was completely rotten. Usually we just climb over stuff.

A rambler once shouted at me, "Hey you, its illegall to cycle on the footpath".

Shouting back - "Thats nothing, I murdered someone here last week", seemed to shut them up.

LOL! Nice one!

'You shoon't be riding here'

'You shoon't be so ugly'.

Not really the same thing but someone did threaten to call the police for people washing their bikes in the river after a race at Inners.

[i]I'm with Barnes on this. We suffer from some of the most restrictive access to the countryside, in Yerp. Possibly the World[/i]

See the USA and New Zealand among others for why that is very far from the truth. Flip side is our right to ride Bridleways and upwards is enshrined in law. Footpath riding isn't and if you have an ounce of common sense you know where and when to avoid certain paths.

We suffer from some of the most restrictive access to the countryside, in Yerp

We're a much more densely populated country than most of Europe, with a wet climate, more user conflict, and a prevailing view that the countryside is somehow too precious to jeopardise by letting people explore it in the manner they see fit. You've put across a point of view, but one which is not shared by most of the people who determine access rights in the UK.

So you've mentioned just two countries...

Of course footpath riding requires common sense. But I'll be the judge of that, not someone in an office, or some miserable bugger with red socks,

[i]if you have an ounce of common sense you know where and when to avoid certain paths. [/i]

Exactly. I avoid certain BWs/RUPPs at peak times never mind FPs but that's just cos round here (Peak district) is has a tendency to get very crowded sometimes and, no matter the legality of it, it can ruin a nice fast descent if there's hundreds of walkers all over it.
On the other hand, mid-week or when everything is bone dry or frozen solid and I'm not going to cause any obvious sign then pretty much anything is fair game!

I'll be the judge of that, not someone in an office

What makes you more qualified to judge the environmental impact of your riding then? The fact that you work from home? 🙄

I've heard (but have no evidence) of a group of riders being 'done' in the Dark Peak, where there is a byelaw. Something about encountering rangers on a footpath and either telling them where they were parked or it being pretty obvious and then getting nabbed in the car park. Dunno in what way they were 'done' though.

All very vague obviously.

Well, where's the evidence that mountain biking is causing serious widespread damage to the environment, then? Compared to that caused by cars and industry? Eh?

I agree that there is a need for people to use trails responsibly. But some of the restrictions are just bloody ridiculous.

If people can walk in an area, as long as there's space for cyclists, what's the big problem?

but one which is not shared by most of the people who determine access rights in the UK

you're missing the point that 'access rights' only determine where you may go without liability for damage to the land surface. Common law allows you to go anywhere you're not specifically excluded, like motorways and places where you have to break something to enter, provided you have no criminal intent.

One of the very few times I've come into conflict with a group of walkers was on a bridleway. Most folk either don't know, or don't care what the rules are about where we should actually be.

Now, I ride pretty much where I want to, but even then I'm self policing: Not in big groups, rarely at peak times near obvious honey-spots. Just needs a little thought really.

As an aside, I did run into a Warden at the bottom of a FP descent that I did one evening. We had a "discussion" that went along the lines of "Look I know it's a great piece of singletrack, just don't take the piss, OK?"

Which struck me as about the right attitude, TBH

In answer to the original post, never been “done” but in answer to the question

Would the landowner have to physically restrain the cyclist while calling the police?

[b]However...[/b] I couldn't agree more with tomlevell and MrAgreeable.

Regardless of “the law” and what you think of it, your actions will impact on other people. For example, if I lived at the bottom of Stanage and tried to maintain good relations with local landowners, authorities and various others only for a group to come in and ride a route which is extremely visible and likely to engage some form of conflict I would be rightly pissed off. Even if someone isn't tapping you on the shoulder to complain, doesn't mean that people don't form negative impressions on entire user groups based on the actions of a minority. Unfortunately, that's just the way it is.

Great, if you ride in a differing area every week, ride where you want, sod the consequences and leave everyone else who don't have this oportunity to deal with any negative impacts you might have caused. If you like, top it off with some faux-intellectual posturing on an internet forum as justification.

[i]your actions will impact on other people. [/i]

I think the point that SFB (and others) have made about this, is that it's not actually true is it?

Rudeboy, I hope you're not trying to deny that mountain biking has an evironmental impact, because that would be ridiculous. It does, as does all human activity, and in certain conditions it can be the most noticeable form of damage to the landscape. Whether it causes more than other forms of use is difficult to say as it depends on so many factors, but over time even the most benign use will have a noticeable impact.

Aside from erosion, there can be problems with user conflict (which is pretty much inevitable when walkers and bikers share a route - it's no good telling them "a miss is as good as a mile"), overall volume of use, disturbance to wildlife, damage to habitats, landowner liability (bearing in mind that landowners can't choose who sues them) and more.

You probably don't have to worry about any of this though, because after riding a footpath you can bugger off back to London, to your rented flat...

A colleague of mine was stopped a few years ago by the police for riding on the footpath. They confiscated his drivers licence and ordered him to appear at the police station to pay a small fine (£30 IIRC).

In his own words he was flying, but that the footpath was wide and empty, but he is short fat and unfit. Apparently the police were very patronizing (no surprises there) and told him he was lucky they didn't arrest him reckless endangerment but they would give him a speeding ticket instead as he was going over 30mph in a 30mph zone,despite not being on the road. Quite amazing really when you consider he was on a coiler with 2.5 super tacky tires on a flat piece of road but I suppose you can't argue with the lazer beam eyes of a police man.

This was in NI by the way and I'm convinced the police here just make things up as they go along.

I've ridden where I wasnt supposed to on countless occasions, had numerous arguments with rangers, walkers, horseists etc and never really stopped or been swayed from my path. If I ever see a police helicopter chasing after me, I'll know the game is up.

What makes you more qualified to judge the environmental impact of your riding then?

I think this is more about territoriality than the environment. In 2007 I got told off by Fizzer for posting a new route on Longridge, which he said would be ruined by the ignorant masses. Well, some of it [b]HAS[/b] been ruined, by vandals chopping down acres of trees and destroying the lovely forest - probably these same 'land managers' mentioned above 🙁

I [b]AM[/b] qualified to observe that bikes cause about the same amount of environmental damage as boots.

top it off with some faux-intellectual posturing on an internet forum as justification

I don't think I [b]need[/b] to justify complying with the Common Law. We ride our bikes in the countryside, it's no big deal, and most of the time no one even notices.

As for Stanage I'd be interested to hear what effect (if any) our ride there had, beyond causing a minor storm in an internet thimble ?

been moaned at a few times but that's about it. I ride pretty much where I like and don't any notice of what anyone else has to say about it.

Kev

RudeBoy - Member
So you've mentioned just two countries...

That'd be double the number you did... 😉
In any case Allmannsretten (sp? not too hot my Norsk) doesn't neccesitate the same access rights for cyclists as other users (hikers, skiiers...).

There are byelaws on a lot of open access private land and national parks whereby you can be fined for riding on footpaths, the New Forest is one. I've not heard of any cyclists being caught, but a kite boarder was fined £300 bacause his kite was over the 6ft (IIRC) max size allowed.

I'm not sure who can enforce the fine though - whether the Forestry Commission could, or if it has to be police.

Anyway, if youre on a bike and off-road, its going to be pretty difficult for them to catch you.

I have been given a talking-to by the FC a couple of times, but on other occasions we've been spotted they say Hi or want to talk bikes 🙂

I AM qualified to observe that bikes cause about the same amount of environmental damage as boots.

That might be true for where you ride.

vandals chopping down acres of trees and destroying the lovely forest

That would be the right to exploit the land agriculturally which you mentioned above? If you object to that sort of thing, perhaps you should club together with some mates and buy a piece of moorland, which can then be managed in the way you see fit? Or maybe think of some other way to give the land owner a financial return?

In terms of being done you have:

Trespass - an offence against the land owner
By-law - such as the ones mentioned above. Generally a fine for carrying out an activity which has been prohibited.
Environmental damage - damage to sensitive sites either ecological such as SSSI (site of special scientific interest) or archaeological such as scheduled ancient monumnents.
Disturbance - it is an offence to disturb certain species, most commonly be birds during the nesting season.

I've not heard of any mountain bikers being done. Even with illegal MX riding and off roading prosecutions tend to be for road road traffic rather than environmental reasons.

Mr Agreeable ... because after riding a footpath you can bugger off back to London, to your rented flat

not SO agreeable then ? Or are you only agreeable with people who do what you want ?

I AM qualified to observe that bikes cause about the same amount of environmental damage as boots.
[b]That might be true for where you ride.[/b]

I cannot observe where I [b]don't [/b]ride...

That would be the right to exploit the land agriculturally which you mentioned above?

good point, but why do they have to be so destructive? This isn't a cheery lumberjack with an axe, it's heavy plant which chews up the trails into massive ruts and leaves behind a blasted wasteland of shattered branches 🙁 But in any case, clearfelling doesn't exactly respect the environment...

Rudeboy, I hope you're not trying to deny that mountain biking has an evironmental impact, because that would be ridiculous. It does, as does all human activity, and in certain conditions it can be the most noticeable form of damage to the landscape.

Really? Care to provide proof of this? So, mountain bikes cause more damage than building a motorway through a rural area? Or as much as plonking a nuclear power station in the middle of the countryside?

Well, we'd all better stop right away, then!

You probably don't have to worry about any of this though, because after riding a footpath you can bugger off back to London, to your rented flat...

Yes, I can. Aren't I lucky? 😀

Come on, get a grip. We're talking about responsible people, using the countryside in a responsible and respectful manner. And deciding for themselves, when the 'laws' make no sense.

Long and short of it; most places that are footpaths, are suitable for mountain bikes as well. Therefore, mountain bikes ought to be allowed on them. Restricting access causes conflict and tension between users, more than if those silly restrictions were lifted.

EG; I was once riding along the coast, from St. Austell to Truro. I set off along what was clearly marked as a bridleway. This then stopped abruptly, and became a footpath. There was no difference in the nature of the trail, the number of people using it, or anything. It just ceased to be a bridleway, and became a footpath. Like **** was I going to turn round, and have to make a massive detour, so I just carried on. Further along, the path once more became a bridleway. This situation was repeated several times along the route. One section of bridleway was even inaccessible without using the footpath! Just stupid.

All along the route, I slowed down and stopped for others, and was courteous and polite to everyone. Most people were friendly, and said hello. Some stopped to ask how far I was going and stuff. All very pleasant.

Only quite near the end, after 40 odd miles in the hot sun, did I encounter Angry Man. Some miserable old bastard, with a very ugly wife, having a right go at me.

That section I was on was a bridleway. I remarked upon this, and showed him on the map. He still carried on, and then threatened to 'physically restrain me from continuing'.

I cheerfully pointed out that he and his wife's bodies might not be discovered for some time, from the rocks below, were he to attempt such an act.

It din't spoil my day, but I'm sure it spoiled his. And he was wrong.

What do you do? Some folk just don't seem to think that they should share things with others.

clearfelling doesn't exactly respect the environment...

Which is why it's subject to a lot more restrictions than walking or mountain biking.

As for that matter is building a motorway, or a nuclear power station.

Rudeboy, I take it you know that bridleways and footpaths can be reclassified? It doesn't happen through people whinging on internet forums though.

In any case Allmannsretten (sp? not too hot my Norsk) doesn't neccesitate the same access rights for cyclists as other users (hikers, skiiers...).

Having been to Norway a few times, as far as I am aware, the same rights extend to cyclists as do to skiers, horseriders, etc. They don't extend to motorised vehicles. There are some who want to restrict these rights, to exclude mtbers, but most people don't have any issue with it.

At the end of the day its down to common sense. If you're somewhere you shouldn't and get busted, take it on the chin, plead ignorance and be humble. Don't get into a fight as usually the people who pull you up already have a chip on their shoulder and verbal arguements just reinforce their (already) skewed view. I usually try to be sickeningly nice to them just to make them look even more unreasonable!
A lot of the time it doesn't make logical sense being denied access to certain routes, but who said access laws were always logical?
The worst i had was some old bid starts to have a pop at me for riding down a FP, even though i kept well back from her. She shut up when i informed her that my driveway actually led into the FP and therefore i was effectively riding along my own road!

Restricting access causes conflict and tension between users, more than if those silly restrictions were lifted.

Indeed, if restrictions were based on a more coherent and logical system rather than seemingly archaic laws then a lot of frustration could be avoided. However, the transgression of "the laws" causes as much if not more conflict and tension between users as their imposition in the first place.

In my opinion, avoiding conflict where possible (even if it seems ridiculous) is the best means of improving/maintaining access for the many rather than the few in the long term. This means acting responsibly, even if there is no danger of getting caught or being prosecuted.

Rudeboy, without wanting to get into the ins and outs of it as it's not relevant to this thread, as I understand the concept of Allmannsretten in Norway (viewed from the Swedish perspective where there is a marginally different but broadly similar concept) is that what you say is largely true in practice. However, there are places you will find no cycling signs etc, and I'm not even sure to what extent the concept is adopted into the Landslag or common law. As you probably know, most Scandinavians act very much according to societal norms (akin to little England's "what would the neighbours say?") rather than the letter of the law. Or, as I like to think of it, Scandinavia: Land of the free, home of the self-regulating.

I didn't see it mention yet, but now I'm leaving with a botanist, I feel very bad about all those MTBikers riding in SSSI or any protected woods for their rare plants. Sometimes it's only one rare plant available in the whole UK, and it's just be trashed by a bike,and that's the end.

But surely that same plant could just as easily be trashed by someone on foot, no?

Therefore, shoon't walkers also be barred from those areas?

I've yet to see any evidence that mtbers cause considerably more environmental damage than walkers.

In some cases walkers are restricted - sections of land have been left out of area access (right to roam)for environmental reasons. Damage is difficult to prove - hence to MX prosecutions for no tax etc rather than habitat damage.

I got stopped recently by two rangers in Holyrood park, in Edinburgh. Told that bikes weren't allowed and to dismount. I didn't know what the score was myself (it's the Queen's land I think), but was happy to comply - they were cool about it and we had a chat, I was only arsing around on a new build in any case.

It was on the radical road for those who know it, not deep in the bog.

The one time I was told by a walker that I shouldn't be on a particular path I took great pleasure in pointing out that there was no ROW so she was as guilty as me. I then challenged her if she know the landowner, and she did not. I smugly pointed out that the landowner of the spot we stood on was Sustrans who had recently purchased the land to turn it into a cycletrack. I think I won that one.

The only time I get any sort of grief around here is on bank holidays from grockles. the rest of the time anything seems to go within reason.

Garry_Lager

It was on the radical road for those who know it

Radical road you say? I should move there.

But surely that same plant could just as easily be trashed by someone on foot, no?

Rudeboy, you sound like some bloke I had a go at for riding an MX bike round my local mountain bike trail. His response was "It's a bike trail innit?" and "There aren't any signs saying you can't". 🙄

I prefer to get all existential about these arguements, i.e. nothing matters. Most people can't cope with this though so we have to have arguments about where we can and can't ride bikes over the earth.

Where I like to ride the most was once an industrial wasteland (old qarries going back to Roman times) that has now become overgrown and is now being protected by 'conservationists'. So every so often I get moaned at by walkers or the trustee (while he sit on his horse) or the countryside rangers.

At what point did it all become so important to preserve something in an artificial stasis for all eternity, instead of just getting on and using it for simple physical pleasures; it's an arrogance that goes back to the Victorians and the our notions of empire and a 'green and pleasant land' (f you Jerusalem) that government, councils, wildlife trust etc knows what's the best for everything and everybody, compounded by our archaic land ownership laws designed to oppress and control what we do and where we do it.

I'm all for asking people to avoid certain spots, like Snowdon on a summers afternoon, or Mam Tor to Lose Hill, but I'm fed up with being told not to, don't do etc

Erosion more-or-less relates to weight. Rider on bike is fractionally heavier than hiker - a difference not worth worrying about. Horse, on the other hand...

And farm/forestry/4x4 vehicles are the real culprits IMO - several bridleways on the Mendip had their surface destroyed last autumn by farm and forestry work. Will they be re-surfaced? Will they heck.

[img] [/img]

I have only been "advised" once, by the factor at Rowberrow Wood*, when caught riding on a private track that criss-crosses the bridleway. I pointed out that I had just passed 10 teenage girls on ponies from the local riding school - he rolled his eyes. It was amicable and I rode away. But if it happens again, I'm going to be complaining about those trashed bridleways not being repaired.

*tip don't go riding off-trail around there if you can hear gunshots - they're shooting at grouse and you might get shot accidentally.

Rudeboy, you sound like some bloke I had a go at for riding an MX bike round my local mountain bike trail.

Then you've seriously misunderstood my point, I'm afraid. Can't help you any more.

Erosion is mostly a factor of ground pressure and shear force at the soil and tyre/hoof/foot interface, rather than pure weight, at least it is where anthropogenic and animal factors are involved.

I have much to say on this matter, but I'd probably bore myself, let alone you lot.

😐

I don't buy the "X trashes the countryside the same or worse than mountain bikers" argument. It may be true, but it doesn't absolve you of responsibility for your actions. It's like saying, "In a few million years' time the sun will expand to engulf the earth, so hey ho, let's trash the place". Anyway, Snowdon, that's just a big pile of rock isn't it? 🙂

Garry Lager, me too (well a few eyars ago on my 21st)

Druidh was going to look into the statutory basis for no bikes on Arthur's seat, dunno if he managed it, he's been pretty busy since he stoppped working. Makes sense to me in practical terms, it could be carnage up there.

RudeBoy - Member
I'm with Barnes on this. We suffer from some of the most restrictive access to the countryside, in Yerp. Possibly the World. In other countries, such as Norway, you can ride a bike more or less anywhere, bar cultivated fields, areas with livestock with young, and within a certain distance of anyone's home. Anything else is more or less fair game...

I'll ride wherever I feel it's suitable to. As SFB says, 'it's our country'.

Scotland has access laws similar to Norway. I'm surprised you lot haven't all emigrated up here 😀

We'll even speak a version of English to you, and throw in some nifty mountains to ride on.

I'm surprised you lot haven't all emigrated up here

It rains all the time, and the food's crap! 😉

Hey I'm famous at last 😀

Moaned, grumbled at etc. Usually by dog walkers with uncontrolled dogs.

I used to ride the moors between llandegla and rhos almost nightly when i lived round there and had ridden them for nigh on twenty years, we had a change of keepers and was chased and stopped one night by the new keeper and told to keep off his footpaths.It was only after pointing out i was the guy who had been closing his gates and taking rubbish home that they left behind -he used to turn a blind eye to me after that.The adjoining forest was covered by the water board and their ranger was very pro mtb as he claimed that we helped keep the foot paths clear.

hmmm, well, ive had people threaten harm me, my bike, my friends etc, all for riding on 'cheeky trails. Hasnt put me off though, as my local rides still consist of about 80 percent 'illegal' riding. If only i lived somewhere where the bridleways were actually any good...

the bikers ride it, it becomes a trail, then the dog walkers walk it and decide its a footpath so block it whenever the mood takes them.
so the bikers clear it and ride it again, but now its getting obvious, so the groups of walkers walk it as well as the dog walkers.
thats the beginning of the end because
then the cheeky horse riders ride it, and like mountain bikers they are happy that its only them using it, so its ok.
now the trail is blatant and if the landowner doesnt block its use totally its not long before the MXrs get to it, soon to be followed by the 4x4s and intensive equestrian use.

then it rains.

nobody can use the trail at all, so over a year the quagmire is quickly covered with holly and brambles and fallen trees so the trail, footpath, bridleway disappears.

And the cycle begins again soobalias? To be honest, the only person in the above scenario losing out is the landowner. And that's probably only in an abstract way. Also, perhaps those who cause the least erosion are losing out because the trail becomes unusable but not by their actions.

must confess to riding on the odd footpath,ahem,and recently was met at the end of one route by the local rozzers.(we heard the sirens coming from a distance) :cry:(night ride)

fortunatly they turned a blind eye, but we might be not so lucky in future.never mind,the nights are creeping out,no need fer lights soon 😀

I'll ride wherever I feel it's suitable to. As SFB says, 'it's our country'.

Must not agree with RB and SFB..... Must.... resist.......

fortunatly they turned a blind eye

what could they do you for, an offensive beard ??

have been flagged down by a "weekend warrior" peak park warden who demanded my address - naturally i obliged and pointed out that the peak park will have on record a lot of correspondence from me about their poor performance at implementing policy and that maintaining the many historical anomolies in the peak including the one i was riding wasn't acceptable (bridleway in S Yorks/footpath in Derbyshire - 300yr old pack horse route - NT land & check out all the verbosity about cycle access in their policies) - also i pointed out that i campaigned for many years with the sheffield campaign for moorland access including publishing trespass walks
think i bored him to death and heard no more

simple viewpoint and best wayforward - write to yr MP - CROW needs revising to allow horse and cycle access to all CROW land excluding SSI (if any exist)

as to prior to CROW found that a game warden with dogs and guns was usually persuasive - mind you been back at mooned at them since

Be nice in the Peak if they would open up footpaths to riders after dark...
O.. we do that anyway 😉

What really gets my back up is that round here, we have two decent bits of Forestry Commission controlled woods, one has short length of bridle path with the remainder being "restricted access" & the other al"restricted access"

Restrictions are due to the fact that its all been used for shooting.

So the rest of us tax payers can't use it.

Perhaps I should strap a shotgun to the back of my bike western style.

Got severely told off for riding my bike along the glider "runway" on the Long Mynd the other week. Fair enough I suppose!!

There's a lot of talk here about damage to the environment and "someone else" possibly suffering because of us lot riding cheekily. One thing not mentioned much is the land-owners who "discourage" use of their land. I have 2 scars across my upper arms from a piece of bailing twine strung across a BRIDLEWAY. I dread to think how the farmer discourages bikers from the footpaths. I also dread to think what would have happened to me if it had caught me round the neck.