You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Right then...
Today I was faced with the choice of riding along a dual carriageway or through 2 fields of footpath. Only 2 options to get where I needed to go.
I chose to use the footpath and promptly met the lovely couple living next to the field. The chap was very reasonable when I explained why I had made the choice and that I did not think I would do any damage to a wide and pretty dry path across a field with no animals in. The woman screamed at me and told me to piss off to the dual carriageway where she was not entirely concerned for my future safety 😉
In the end the chap said he didn't have a problem despite the woman's kind words still going on in the background. I walked the footpath so as not to take the p1ss too much having talked to them and tried to be reasonable.
So my question is:
What is the worst that would happen if caught cycling on a footpath?
More generally it is rather frustrating that sections of bridleway end abruptly and turn to footpaths and the majority of the local countryside is footpaths regardless of the trail type. Even a lot of the countryside roads are designated footpaths.
Today's events just got me thinking that's all...
Legally? Nothing unless the land owner decides to prosecute you for trespass. It's not a criminal offence to ride on them and generally the police won't be involved unless the owner decides they want you off.
Age old discussion though. Argue this to the nimbys and walkers...
Their "right of way" as in the footpath is generally only there because of an act of deliberate mass trespass by walkers. Do they morally have a right then and why should not anyone else? Why should they have exclusive rights, and did the right of way really intend using it to let their dogs crap all over the path and leave it there or bag it up and stick the bag on the nearest tree?
Why also should cyclists who are undertaking a healthy activity and have little more impact than a herd of ramblers, be treated like horses and confined to bridleways?
Not much in reality.
In some areas it can lead to conflict and access issues. In popular areas it's just a plain bad idea to try and ride in the middle of 200 ramblers.
The isue you have highlighted is mostly due to the mad way paths were classified many years ago. On parish council goes BW the next door one goes FP for no real reason.
There are a few options one is the anything goes scottish approach
another would be some grading due to suitability
In the end of the day avoiding muddy boggy trails regardless of what they are would be good. This kind of common sense is a little hard to find though.
Worse thing that can happen did, apart from a puncture, you got off and walked.
A quick glance [url= http://ukcyclerules.com/2010/11/23/riding-on-footpaths-the-basics/ ]here[/url] and [url= http://www.bikehub.co.uk/featured-articles/cycling-and-the-law/ ]here[/url] suggest that cycling on footpaths is only illegal if there are local council by-laws as deadkenny says.
If the landowner wanted to be stupid about it then it seems they may pursue a civil case for trespass although I am unsure how a tyre mark fits in with this???
Also seems fixed penalty notices only apply why the footpath is next to a road, i.e. a pavement not a countryside footpath.
Does this seem about right?
Anyone have any experience with outcomes of cycling on footpaths which are not just the usual ramblers shouting about the environment or similar?
What is the worst that would happen if caught cycling on a footpath?
Death
When I'm on my bike and people want to argue with me for whatever reason, I find the worst that can happen is that I stop to argue with them. Being on a bike has two benefits:
1. It's awesome.
2. I can ride off if people starting talking to me.
HTH.
I've been chastised by folks recently for riding on the footpath but one of them actually started to cry when I told her I'm too scared to ride on the roads these days because recently I've lost 4 close friends under the wheels of cars/lorries. It soon makes them shut up.
I'll make sure to look for landmines if I ever have the need to use the nice couple's field again 🙂
Very little legal recourse but we have hearts & minds to win too, where very possible, on these shared routes. Apart from the antiquated law and arbitrary labelling, in practice, a Definitive Map recording designation as a FP does not mean other "higher rights" don't exist, and often do. (See the excellent Byway & Bridleway newsletter). Being armed with the facts can calm a situation.
You can bore the arse off them too.
Riding on a footpath without the landowner's permission (in England or Wales) is trespassing; the landowner or representative can ask you to leave by the quickest (shortest?) route and use reasonable force to make sure you do. You are liable for any damage you do (that's probably the biggest risk). Trespass is a civil matter not a criminal offence. The owner can go to court and get an injunction to stop a named person coming on the land, but you don't have tell them your name which makes it hard for them.
If you're pushing a bike you [i]probably [/i]are considered to be a pedestrian and can legally use the footpath - there are different views on this and I'm not sure if it's been resolved. Whether you can, if asked to leave, push the bike instead I don't know. Also I don't know if the owner can tell you to leave by a particular route, or if you can legally say 'the quickest way off your land is if I ride down this hill'. If you are injured by (say) a dog or a bull while trespassing I think you may have a case but not as good as if you were there legally.
I am not a lawyer, and may not be 100% correct.
Some places also give you a right of way by the landowners even where official public footpaths cross the land. The Hurtwood lands in the Surrey Hills are a classic example of open access. With a couple of exceptions for conservation purposes, open to all, walkers, bikes, dogs, horses, even on the public footpaths.
Is's not something I'd worry about too much, unless it's specifically designed for disabled access or something with big No Cycling signs, or it's a ride with loads of other bods that are going to pish walkers off. It's an issue of common sense I reckon. Don't know if STW does that.
Were the couple the landowners over which the footpath passed?
I don't know for sure but assumed they were the landowners when they started referring to the field as "my field" and they came out of the neighbouring house. If I could plainly see they were just walkers I would have been tempted to carry on and be overly polite.
Thanks Greybeard. As far as I can tell with a quick search pushing a bike makes you a "passenger of a vehicle" or something equally daft and is compared to riding a push scooter rather than being a pedestrian. I think technically you can't even push a bike on a footpath.
Of course, with all of this common sense on both sides would hopefully prevail but I got curious today as to what could (or has???) happened if the landowner got out of the bed on the wrong side...
ask yourself why it is nearly always the female half that has a pop. next time, just ask her how many shags it takes to get a nice house in the country.
it does not matter whether you really think this is true or not, but it will definitely get a reaction.
alternatively, you have actually done the best thing by being reasonable, but every so often it won't hurt to give a little back.
My preferred option for riding cheeky trails (not riding through a field to stay off a dual carriageway which is somewhat more justifiable) is also to be so polite it winds them up even more. Being cheery does funny things to an irate person 🙂
If it was their field they'd have been very specific about you being on their land. Both of them. That's my guess. She was just pissed off about seeing cyclists shooting past in their awesome clothing on their awesome bikes.
If it was their land they'd have threatened you with legal action and all sorts of stuff and they would both have been on it. No doubt the guy was struggling with conflict between supporting his wife while still trying to rationalise the insanity she was spewing. If it was a sensible issue (because it was their land), he'd have been really supportive of her.
Basically, there haven't been any prosecutions, so there isn't much case law. There is however some case law that suggests that pushing a bike does classify you as a pedestrian, and does give you right of way on a footpath. I'm not sure if that right remains if the landowner has already caught you cycling, and therefore trespassing, on his land. If that right remains then you could just continue your journey on foot, if it doesn't then the landowner could ask you to leave his land by the shortest route. I guess even after that you could re-enter their land so long as you were pushing the bike and keeping to the footpath, although maybe not the best idea in terms of keeping the peace.
Only the landowner or someone representing the landowner can tell you not to cycle on a footpath. For all anyone else knows you could have permission to cycle on the land. The landowner can ask you to leave his land, and can use reasonable force, or instruct someone else to use reasonable force, to make you leave. Obviously using any sort of force without first asking you to leave would be unacceptable, as are threats/use of violence.
It's not a criminal matter, so the police won't be involved if they can avoid it, and you won't get any criminal charges unless other offences are also committed. The landowner can pursue you through the civil courts for damages caused by trespassing, but as far as I know there is no record of this ever happening because of cycling on a footpath. Unless you trash a large amount of crops or fences or something it simply won't be worth pursuing you. It would also, of course rely on them knowing who you are in order to take you to court.
D'you reckon she was on a new years diet/giving up the fags and feeling crap and grumpy about herself? bit irate at a nice healthy cyclist enjoying the outdoors? haha, people can be wierd. should've told her to get a bike and all the positive outcomes cycling could hold for her physical and mental wellbeing. Or just forget about it cos other people are just different people! People like that used to wind me up, now it's just "whatever". The worst that could happen is you get told off by someone or other. Oh my.
There's very little anyone can do if your caught riding on a footpath, I have a footpath that runs from my estate to the main road clearly saying no bikes but I still use it as a short cut on my bike, when walkers stop littering or letting their dogs crap on the path then I will stop riding along it, besides I always stop when I approach a walker and have never been challenged by anyone yet.
As long as your respectful then I don't see why we can't co-exist on footpaths. Call it hypocritical I do take exception to riding on pavements.
What if you carry the bike? Are you still a passenger?
To the OP, I'd have done the same.
The other thing that prompted this thread was on my way home there were at least 4 yellow Police notices at the start of footpaths (6 miles away from where I bumped in to the couple- not the same area) which said something along the lines of "Successful prosecution in this area. Anti-social behavior will not be tolerated". Perhaps there have been kids drinking/ riding quads/ whatever in the area? Kind of then though ooh er I wonder if the village mob will restrain me for using any more footpaths (I stuck to the road anyway)
I believe that just by having the bike around you you are still technically a passenger. But, as it doesn't seem there are any instances of cycling on footpaths going through the courts there is even less likely chance or carrying a bike on a footpath ever making waves in the legal world
No, as I mentioned, case law suggests that you count as being on foot if pushing a bike:
"Pushing a cycle on a footpath was a grey area in law but has now been resolved - anyone pushing a bicycle is a "foot-passenger" (Crank v Brooks [1980] RTR 441) and is not "riding" it."
The worst that can happen? Probably you accidentally hit a frail old lady knocking her to the ground and fatally wounding her and you end up being charged with manslaughter... ...how likely that is will very much depend on the path, your riding style, the popularity of the path etc.
I would probably have done the same as you, but its worth bearing in mind that MANY dual carriageways are not inherently dangerous, and with confidence/assertiveness and high vis clothing you can ride them comfortably. If it were likely to be a regular problem for me, I'd write to the local council asking them to: either upgrade the cycle provision on the road OR provide a safe off road alternative, and get as many others to do the same as possible.
PleaderWilliams- Does the designation "foot passenger" therefore count you truely as a pedestrian or by the presence of the "passenger" part imply you still have something to do with the vehicle (bike) which is not permitted on the footpath?
On the one hand there would be no way to negotiate a pavement in an urban area but on the other hand pushing a bike leaves much the same footprint as riding a bike on a countryside footpath assuming of course that you would not normally be skidding all over the place when riding.
I ride on footpaths as well as BWs locally. I'm friendly polite and respectful to walkers, indicate that they have right of way etc. Try to make them smile if poss. Even make a fuss of their dog if they have one. It works 99 times out of 100. Local farmer (landowner) was initially hostile when he caught me a few years ago. However even he has mellowed - last time he smiled and said I was fine. The battle of hearts and minds etc...
Be polite up until the point the silly bitch became abusive then all bets are off and can say what you like in return. Faced with a FP or a dual carriageway its a no brainer so don't let some stupid tart influence your decision. With hindsight you should have stopped for a well timed piss.
I'm glad I don't have to put up with all that shit here.
[img] 
[/img]
I'm glad I don't have to put up with all that shit here
Put up with what, silly flags on footpaths? 😆
Not a footpath, it's a path!. Only a footpath darn sarf.
Sorry, I meant to say fooooooootputh 😉
bruneep - Member
I'm glad I don't have to put up with all that shit here.
you are TJ and I claim my £5 (English)
Trespass doesn't have to be physical damage
Didn't some guy get taken to court for frightening birds on a shoot meaning the shoot organiser wanted to claim for lost earnings?
As far as it goes, its very hard to be prosecuted for trespass as its not a criminal offence.
On the other hand you can be prosecuted for criminal damage, which can include damage to vegetation.
I'll not put the facts on here but 2 friends and myself were, earlier this century, yes 21st century. Local Police were a bit annoyed at the time wasted but the local Duke has friends in high places. This was on Moor Land in the Dales !!!
have a footpath that runs from my estate to the main road clearly saying no bikes
For a brief moment imagined you setting of from a manor house across your own lands, sadly your etate is shared like the rest of us
It's very difficult to get properly done for it. The worst you could expect is an argument and some possible future retalition in the form of biker traps which sadly seem to be cropping up more regularly - the much-publicised story last week about traps in the woods around Saddleworth & Chew Plantation.
nbt off here got into a bit of an argument when about 7 of us (rather unwisely) rode down a local FP in the Peak District. We buggered off out of sight leaving him to debate the niceties of historical access rights which he did very well. 🙂
Other than the, the worst I've had, even in the overcrowded Peak District is a few tuts or comments about "bikes not being allowed here" to which my standard reply of "I know, how silly" leaves most people thoroughly confused. 🙂
DalesRider
I was just going to post the bit about 'criminal damage' - which is a criminal offence, - I read somewhere to carry some sweeties/money etc and when challenged to offer them in 'as compensation for any potential damage caused' or something weird like that.
If you could post anything that might help others understand this area more I'd appreciate it.
I've been informed by a rights of way officer that a footpath is only a proven right of way for walkers, this doesn't mean other users haven't got a right to be there. The only exception are no cycling signs.
gusamc - MemberDalesRider
If you could post anything that might help others understand this area more I'd appreciate it.
Well its a unique set of circumstances around here as its not covered by the CROW act, not yet anyway, for what happens on the Moors. So is covered by ByLaws
The Landowner is one of the richest in the Country having 5 Major country halls and estates, a couple of mansions in Londons Picadily oh and 2 significant country estates in the Dales and The Peaks plus 1 in Eire.
He, as I said, has friends in Very high places and as far as prosecuting plebs the estate has the money. I dont think any "Ordinary" person with a small amount of land would.
The police took prints, DNA and gave us a warning but that counts to a criminalrecord on a CRB check. One friend was a teacher and very nearly lost his job.
So its just a warning, to say it cant happen is wrong, to say it will is unlikely.
BTW the charge was "Damage to shrubbery of value unknown"
What is the worst that would happen if caught cycling on a footpath?
no cuddles 😥
Cheers
I asked as I ride on the land of somebody 'rich' who has an estate, I've now met the gamekeeper twice
#1 - he was a twtt, had a right go about 30 dumped lorry tyres, and didn't seem willing to take it on board that a normal person can't carry let alone cycle with a lorry tyre.
#2 - much less hostile, but stated that I could have my bike confiscated under section 59
"Section 59 Police Reform Act 2002 states that -
Where an officer has reasonable grounds for believing that a motor vehicle is being used in a manner which contravenes Road Traffic Act Section 3 (Careless Driving) OR Section 34 (Driving elsewhere than on a road) AND also the manner of use of the vehicle is causing or has been causing or is likely to cause, alarm distress or annoyance to members of the public, Section 59 can be used to:-"
so that won't happen on a bike
#3 the land owner could be something to do with parliament and could have tried to get full access to shared paths for horses, whilst only allowing horses to use paths on his land
Wow Dalesrider that is an awful story!
In cases like that especially when the charge is "Damage to shrubbery of value unknown" did you consider a non-legal route such as publication of the daftness? There must have been a good few cycling organisations/ papers who could offer support. I guess at the end of the day you probably didn't want to make any more of it especially given the position of your friend as a teacher.
Truely absurd!
gusamc - Member
Well I've been stopped many a time by game keepers and The Dales Wardens on the landrover tracks, they always get a discussion. As the area is open access with by-laws I just point out that one of them Forbids "carrying an electronic device for production of music". [not the exact words but close enough] and ask if they have a mobile phone with them.
They always have, when asked does it say anything about "Cycling" they start to mutter. 😀
BTW it mentions things like Kite flying and a friend has been threatened with a prosecution for Parapenting of their land !!!!
The specific instance I mentioned earlier was to do with Climbing on a Crag they dont want people climbing on, since it happened another friend has been cautioned as we were. I have climbed on it since the Police caution as have a few others. So beware is all I'm saying.
cheers, useful info.
In your position I might be tempted to see if there are any tax deals on art etc etc - as if there are they MUST allow public viewing, or make enquiries about SSI and subsidies etc
I ride cheeky most times now, and the gamekeeper has been the only fly in the ointment, I get moans and comments from a few ramblers but they are 'not the landowner or an appointed factor therof' or whatever it is, all other people who have known the law and had the legal right to apply it have been happy, smiley helpful people and not the least bothered aboout it.
On a more positive note, I once made the mistake of riding down a nice rocky bit of double track in Dorset which turned out to be a back entrance to Madonna's mansion. I only realised this when greeted by 3 blacked out landrovers who suggested I turn around and go back 🙂
1. There is no criminal offence of ridng a bicycle (or any other non motorised vehicle including horse and carts) on a footpath.
2. Just because it's recorded on the definitive map as a footpath doesn't mean that cycle rights don't exist.
3. IF a landowner decided to sue you for trespass he would have to prove on balance of probability that no cycle rights existed. When the definitive maps were first drawn up, and in the subsequent revisions of them, cycle rights were generally under recorded on the map. This is because recording the true status of routes would mean more byways and bridlepaths which is fiercely opposed by anti access organisations such as the Ramblers Assosciation and GLEAM.
4. Recording rights of way for cyclists has been made much harder by the NERC act which was campaigned for by the CTC.
Orangetoaster:
How would you find out if cycle rights exist under a footpath definition?
I ride on local footpaths here in Northumberland, but I avoid the trails over the grouse moors (esecially in the shooting and nesting seasons). Twice been acosted by angry gamekeepers, who coincidentally had big guns. Trespass in that case could be damage to ground nesting birds and subsequent loss of earnings from loss of shooting.
Only once been stopped on a footpath where I kindly explained that I was causing less damage than the landrover parked behind me....
Dan W
It's a complex task requiring research of historical documents.
"rights of way - a guide to law and practice" has some usefull guides on how to research rights of way.
I'm not aware of any cycling organisations that are actively involved in securing historic carriageways for mountain bikers. The Trail Riders Fellowship work to conserve historic roads. Your local group may well be able to help.
poly - Member
The worst that can happen? Probably you accidentally hit a frail old lady knocking her to the ground and fatally wounding her and you end up being charged with manslaughter... ...how likely that is will very much depend on the path, your riding style, the popularity of the path etc.
I agree and always have with the above. If something were to happen, for example a mountain biker in collision with a walker. I think that the mountain biker would be hard pushed to prove their innocence even if they were not to blame, purely due to the fact that they should not be on the footpath in the first place.
Dales Rider - was this on the Barden estate? Just interested as I'm local and it may be a slight disincentive to all the cheekiness I'm considering when the weather improves.
Actual collisions aside how could it actually end up in court? My bike doesn't have number plates and I certainly wouldn't be giving my name or address to anyone.
Presumably in the case of cycling on a footpath, as opposed to just cycling on a piece of land without a ROW, you could argue that any damage caused is no worse than would be caused by a walker? So suing/charging you for 'scaring birds' or 'damaging shrubs' seems totally unreasonable, since walkers would do exactly the same, and have a legal right to be there?
martinhutch - MemberDales Rider - was this on the Barden estate? Just interested as I'm local and it may be a slight disincentive to all the cheekiness I'm considering when the weather improves.
You guessed it.
Funniest occurrence we had was late 90's about a week before Christmas. A route we had done several times but this time the Head Game Keeper must have had his curtains open.
Coming from the Valley Of Desolation and across the top of Laund Plantation when we turned down to the Storiths road our lights must have shone straight into his house on Black Park. A whole possie of gamekeepers in landrovers were sent out.
We'd gone through a gate to head down towards the Strid when they turned up. Crouching down behind the wall trying not to giggle we got the gist that they were after motorcyclists / quad riders and that they must be around somewhere with a van or pickup. Even made the ptress as suspected poachers.......... 😀
BTW Loads of good routes if you want some inside info.
I agree and always have with the above. If something were to happen, for example a mountain biker in collision with a walker. I think that the mountain biker would be hard pushed to prove their innocence even if they were not to blame, purely due to the fact that they should not be on the footpath in the first place.
You're suggesting that you're more likely to get found guilty of manslaughter because you have no right of way? 😯 I don't believe criminal law cares all that much about such things - you do realise that it's not up to you to prove your innocence in a criminal case?
Forgive if I'm wrong etc etc
I understood trespass was going onto land with the [u]intent[/u] of doing damage. ie not only have you done damage to crops (or lord preserve us all...shrubbery) but you did so with the express intent of doing so. (if you see what I mean).
in other words you can't be done for trespass just because you've damaged something.
Dales Rider - cheers, yes, I thought it must be them.
Must admit, I don't get over to the Simon's Seat side very often, more the Barden Moor end (using the BWs of course 🙂 ).
The case law that declared a cyclist as a foot passenger was, if I remember right, in regards to a cyclist who was knocked down on a pedestrian crossing whilst pushing his bike.
It's important to remember that there's a big difference between a footway (such as a pavement by the road ... and the crossings in between) and a footpath. It is an offence to cycle on the former (unless, and again don't quote me, this is from memory, you're under a certain age or can give a good reason for doing so, such as feeling unsafe on the road), where you can be fined on the spot.
The rules of a footpath are more vague. And the term usually bandied around is 'natural accompaniment', because the law allows you natural accompaniments when traversing public footpaths. Plenty of people are willing to state that a bicycle does not amount to a natural accompaniment, but I don't believe the law is actually clear on this, and there's a hell of a lot of people out there who would argue it is! You're making a journey, cycling some roads, walking some footpaths. Seems perfectly natural to me.
Short answer, as already established in this thread however, is that there is no answer.
There's actually a really good series of articles on the Singletrack site, including an interview with a RoW officer.
Do you have a link to the RoW officer interview butcher?
With regards to pavements it appears there is a £30 on the spot fine which must be delivered by an officer in uniform. This does not apply to under 16's from what I can gather online.
martinhutch - MemberDales Rider - cheers, yes, I thought it must be them.
Must admit, I don't get over to the Simon's Seat side very often, more the Barden Moor end (using the BWs of course ).
One of the best descents around is on Barden Moor all the way from Thorpe Moor Top down to Drebley, or so I hear 😉
turned out to be a back entrance to Madonna
😯
turned out to be a back entrance to Madonna
The guys who insisted on being present in their blacked out 4x4's were too much of a distraction to proceed any further...
The way I see it, English law says you DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT to cycle on a footpath; it doesn't say you MUST NOT cycle on a footpath.
I'm probably wrong though.
[quote=[b]orangetoaster[/b]]Recording rights of way for cyclists has been made much harder by the NERC act That's interesting, could you explain a bit more? I thought NERC just affected establishing rights of way for mechanically propelled vehicles (not pedal cycles). I can see that means recording a right of way will now only be worked for by cyclists, walkers and horse riders, but equally I would have expected opposition to be limited, ie, people who would have opposed a RoW for motorised use won't be worried about cyclists.
If I can avoid roads I do even if i ride on a pavement, but I am always courteous and polite to pedestrians and don't go flying past then scaring the shit out of them, I always smile and acknowledge either with a thank you if they have moved to the side or a greeting, this also applies to footpaths through fields.
So far I have had no one have a go at me in fact the most I normally get is "good morning"
a little article about it
www.guardian.co.uk/environment/bike-blog/2011/jul/28/cycling-pavement-offence