You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Am I right in thinking that with the new Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill 2021 riding a bicycle on footpaths will become a criminal offence?
What could be the punishment for being caught?
Am I right in thinking that with the new Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill 2021 riding a bicycle on footpaths will become a criminal offence?
I don't think you are. Where did you get that from?
.Not sure about cycling on a footpath but the trespass laws are being changed to criminalise a whole load of stuff we do:
https://www.thebmc.co.uk/law-of-trespass-could-change
Ride it like you stole it and dont get caught.
Not that I'm aware of.
It's always been a civil.mayyer for trespass, but I'm not aware of even that being tested in court
Are we talking about a pavement (USA: sidewalk) at the side of a road?
Or a dotted line across an OS map?
It’s always been a civil.mayyer for trespass
Unfortunately the latest plans by the government are to make trespass a criminal offence.
It’s always been a civil.mayyer for trespass
IIRC it was criminal then was changed to Civil a few decades back....
Ride it like you stole it and dont get caught.
This. **** 'em.
It'll be an interesting test case at least.
Lots of incorrect answers above.
Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill will not make cycling on a footpath an offence. It will not change the status of this activity in any way, it will remain a civil matter.
The Bill will however (if passed as is) make it an offence to reside on land with a vehicle. It's targeting the travelling community, not cyclists.
It’s targeting the travelling community, not cyclists.
And I'm totally sure that (majority) Tory voting landowners will not begin to interpret it differently to suit their own agendas. Absolutely not.
🙄
The Bill will however (if passed as is) make it an offence to reside on land with a vehicle. It’s targeting the travelling community, not cyclists.
Do you mean land or private land? For example if I’m sleeping in my van on a public road/carpark, obviously legally parked no ‘no overnight’ signs etc etc will I be committing a criminal offence?
Targeting the traveller community is bad but god forbid if middle class people can’t sleep in their T5s 😁
Seems to potentially encompass a hell of a lot!
In think in practice you sleeping in your T5 or riding about on a footpath will not, in reality, be a problem.
However, should you turn up in a range of caravans, pickups, vans and crap in the hedge for a week or so, then the coppers may have the power to move you on.
And I’m totally sure that (majority) Tory voting landowners will not begin to interpret it differently to suit their own agendas. Absolutely not.
They can interpret it how they like. The law is the law.
Even ramblers are concerned...
https://www.ramblers.org.uk/policy/england/access/trespass.aspx
The current proposals could result in an erosion of people’s rights to access the countryside, particularly in the context of the Conservative Party manifesto commitment to make intentional trespass a criminal offence.
Criminalisation of trespass would put walkers and others at risk of committing an offence. People may have to leave a footpath to get past an obstruction or have sincerely held beliefs that they have a right of access.
Unfortunately the latest plans by the government are to make trespass a criminal offence.
Not really no. Their "plans" are to make intentional trespass a criminal offence, largely related to groups of people with vehicles not people choosing to wander through a private woodland instead of along an A road.
Of course the implementation may result in much wider interpretation but its not the intention to do anything of the sort.
The concern from the BMC ramblers et Al is that the law is, as ever, likely to be flabby and open to interpretation posing the potential for it to be applied in ways it's not intended to be.
As for concern over van camping and rest stops, the simple answer there is you're not trespassing on a public highway or an allocated rest stop layby etc. Driving into a field, a play area or taking over asda car park is exactly what the law is intended to criminalise.
As for wild camping if its actually wild again it's not really intended to stop that, 30 people pitching up at a lake side every night, yeah it's supposed to criminalise that.
As ever the devil will be in the detail or lack of but frankly, even if it does get implemented in such a way as to criminalise wandering off a PRoW the chance of enforcement is nil outside areas where it is a continuous issue. It'll be like speed limits, observed only in the presence of enforcement.
Random ramblers will tell us we're breaking the law and shouldn't be there, and for a change they'll be right, even though the outcome will be no different.
Watch those Strava accounts! PB on there? OK sonny you're nicked!
Cycling UK have a bit about it too. which might interest those of you who like a bit of bikepacking.
It's arguable that merely cycling on a public footpath is even civil trespass at the moment.
Seems to potentially encompass a hell of a lot!
You see that bit where it's been highlighted to show '10 years' that's a bit disingenuous to say the least, as that's the theoretical maximum, not sentencing guidelines, which will probs. be something like 3 years maximum and that will have to involve repeat offences, planning, intention, likely to cause injury, high value damage etc. Even then, the starting point will probs be measured in weeks, not years. You can have an argument about what sentence should be handed out for damaging property, but to just throw up an image like that is a false flag
They can interpret it how they like. The law is the law.
If you honestly think that money and influence can't buy you a more favourable version of the law in this country, then you are living in la-la land.
I believe the main aim of the changes is to criminalize protests, such as Climate Change, BLM, etc where they 'trespass' or 'cause distress' through their protests, makes it easier to sweep them up if it's a criminal offence, same with travellers, squatters, etc.
Cyclists, ramblers, etc will be small potato, doubt many landowners would complain or the police and courts would have the resource and time to actually enforce and prosecute!
The law is the law.
It's generally interpreted as widely as can be, so esp dangerous if badly worded. Who remembers the Investigative Powers act which was touted as being aimed at terrorists only and in the end was widely used by councils etc to randomly spy on people for the most trivial of offences - all because the law was very loosely worded.
I believe the main aim of the changes is to criminalize protests, such as Climate Change, BLM, etc where they ‘trespass’ or ’cause distress’ through their protests, makes it easier to sweep them up if it’s a criminal offence, same with travellers, squatters, etc.
It's really not, there are already laws in place which make picking up "protestors" perfectly reasonable when they become a problem and they have a pretty broad reach - see the Clapham this weekend.
The point is to reduce the the high thresholds for enforcement which allow gaming of the system at present, e.g. 5 towing vehicles required, so if one van tows 10 caravans onto your playing field, sorry not enforceable at present. They have to be in place without moving for (Iirc) 3days, if you tow the caravan from one side of the field to the other, the clock resets etc.
There are serious problems with the bill in terms of it specifically deliberately targeting social groups amongst other things, it being a deliberate back door to criminalize things isn't really one of them.
in terms of it specifically deliberately targeting social groups amongst other things
@dangeourbrain has it. This law is bad because it targets Travellers specifically. That it does that is bad enough and worthy of opposition. It's not going to change the legal status of your bit of cheeky path on a Sunday morning ride
dangeourbrain
...but frankly, even if it does get implemented in such a way as to criminalise wandering off a PRoW the chance of enforcement is nil outside areas where it is a continuous issue. It’ll be like speed limits, observed only in the presence of enforcement.
You're words aren't very convincing...
'if', 'chance', 'such a way', So you're saying that if the landowner decides to set up a camera trap and shows a cyclists' frequent use of a footpath whilst riding their bike, then they can effectively make a criminal out of that cyclist?
it being a deliberate back door to criminalize things isn’t really one of them.
However, it may well achieve that. Poorly worded laws are interpreted widely and used widely.
So you’re saying that if the landowner decides to set up a camera trap and shows a cyclists’ frequent use of a footpath whilst riding their bike, then they can effectively make a criminal out of that cyclist?
No. They can't
Poorly worded laws are interpreted widely and used widely
And will be abused by those with the means / influence, they also leave doors open to incremental change to an increasingly rigid regime where protest and challenge become ever more difficult.
Covid has been a gift to any government that wants to quiet dissent and increase controls over public spaces. I'm sure they would rather not have had it to deal with economically but with people in fear (from the virus) it is easy to leverage up powers that limit freedoms and get a certain not insignificant proportion of the electorate behind you.
Whether that is our government's objective I don't know but a large majority does not lend itself to good scrutiny and meaningful debate.
This bill is a worry, the protest part is the main concern but there are plenty of other aspects to be concerned about. Given Theresa May spoke out about it in the debate you've got to wonder. With an 80 seat majority I fear it will get pushed through.
However, it may well achieve that. Poorly worded laws are interpreted widely and used widely.
Absolutely, and my first post says as much, "the devil will be in the detail or lack of"
if’, ‘chance’, ‘such a way’, So you’re saying that if the landowner decides to set up a camera trap and shows a cyclists’ frequent use of a footpath whilst riding their bike, then they can effectively make a criminal out of that cyclist?
Not a chance. The comparison with speeding is a good one. A village speed awareness group can sit with a video camera and a speed gun but the only thing they can use the evidence they gather to do is to request enforcement, they can't criminalise anyone, they can't prosecute anything. Your land owner will be in the same position.
If shed loads of cyclist consistently use a footpath or his woodland they may be able to request enforcement action, eg a police officer stationed on the path saying "oi you" but the land owner isn't anymore able to enforce a criminal offence than a civil one.
It may in practice be entirely counter productive should they try to prosecute then find there is a history of use.
It's much ado about nothing in the context of "normal people" going about "normal things". The bill is about intentional trespass, that's defined in law and it very much is not "I'll cut across here instead of going round". It might well cause a problem with digging trails without permission but, ultimately, that's already criminal damage anyhow.
It's possibly going to cause a problem for hunt protestors by shifting their assembly (before action) over the line into criminal offence but mostly if they're interfering in a hunt conducted lawfully on private land they're committing the criminal offence of agrivated trespass when they do anyhow. This will mean there's less need for the police to wait for them to *do* something beyond turn up in numbers on private land. Getting around that is however a minor logistical and organisational headache in the age of mobile phones.
And will be abused by those with the means / influence,
By making it criminal the bar gets much much higher, the opportunity to use that power and influence is massively diminished. A civil action is very easy to bring by comparison, it doesn't require investigation (however cursory) by the police, it doesn't involve the cps assembling a case. It doesn’t come with rights to court appointed representation etc.
You're much much more likely to get screwed over by a rich landowner in civil court bringing an expensive to defend he said she said case against you than in a criminal court where there has 5o be a strong chance of conviction before there is any chance of a prosecution.
Given Theresa May spoke out about it in the debate you’ve got to wonder.
Her sole reason for turning up to things these days is to stick the knife into boris and twist a bit*. Watch how she votes not what she says.
*I'm a bit envious.
Whatever the intent of the law I have a feeling there will be an increase in the number signs threatening police enforcement for trespass emboldened by the new legislation.
Similarly, emboldened walkers telling us we are criminals for riding on footpaths even where the land owner allows it
It’s generally interpreted as widely as can be, so esp dangerous if badly worded.
Not really. There is a lot of law about interpretation of statutes, but the over-arching one is that they are interpreted so as to follow what Parliament intended, as evidenced by the text of the statute and aspects of the legislative history. As has been noted above, the intention behind this is clear, albeit unpleasant, so attempts to interpret it to deal with petty issues will be given short shrift. But equally, the wording is clear, acting dangerously or seriously annoyingly in public can be an offence and there is little scope for interpreting it otherwise. But "serious annoyance" in the context of countryside use will probably have quite a high bar set.
Another aspect of interpretation is that it will be interpreted to comply with the Human Rights Act, and I am sure in due course travelling folk and others will be relying on that.
I wouldn't get too hung up on the presence or absence of a right of way though. The offence can be committed if you have a right of way but are riding like a dick (but if there is no right of way you can't be done under the "obstructing a right" limb). It is difficult to see how your right of way can be a "reasonable excuse" for riding like a dick, and easy to imagine how it could cause serious distress or annoyance etc. Drive your narrowboat too fast down the canal so your wake makes people on the footpath get wet feet... I would say that is seriously annoying. Put logs across a trail that riders have to stop and move out of the way... possibly. No doubt the courts will look at codes of conduct etc. in deciding what reasonable conduct is and what things people might reasonably get annoyed at.
And as noted, the police will take some convincing to take minor cases up, but campaigning organisations may decide to bring test cases/ challenge prosecuting decisions. As far as I can see, a civil action for breach of statutory duty will lie in relation to this section, that would be a laugh.
No doubt about the former, though my experience tells me the later is on the decrease anyhow away from the very popular (e.g. right by a car park) bits out the world.
In both cases mind I predict precisely zero uptick in the amount of notice taken.
’, So you’re saying that if the landowner decides to set up a camera trap and shows a cyclists’ frequent use of a footpath whilst riding their bike, then they can effectively make a criminal out of that cyclist?
Well, no. Breaking the law makes the cyclist a criminal. Being caught and convicted will just confirm that*
Or possibly not, if the court decides that the vagueness in the law should not be used against someone. Which very occasionally happens.
*see also speeding
Whatever the intent of the law I have a feeling there will be an increase in the number signs threatening police enforcement for trespass emboldened by the new legislation.
Similarly, emboldened walkers telling us we are criminals for riding on footpaths even where the land owner allows it
A million times this.
It is more grist to the mill for the hordes of mean spirited killjoys in this increasingly insular and parochial little country.
This law is bad because it targets Travellers specifically.
Why is it bad, is it OK that a boat load of caravans can rock up to private land like a Sainsburys car park or a school field and camp it out while the council, school or supermarket (depending on where they are parked) has to take it through the civil courts to ask them to be moved at their own cost.
The police should have the direct power to move them on there and then, you'd not be happy if they parked up on your driveway would you.
While provision of land for travellers is an issue (its a separate issue) you'll still get those who think by their travellers rights they can park up where they want.
Why is it bad, is it OK that a boat load of caravans can rock up to private land
It's bad because what it's about isn't "is it OK to trespass/caravans/flytip human waste" etc. the law is about is it bad to be a traveller.
Same reason its perfectly reasonable to have a law against carrying a knife, its perfectly reasonable for the police to stop and search someone they think might have one for the purpose of committing a crime, it's absolutely not OK to stop and search someone because being black makes you think they might have one.
You can guarantee this law is not about stopping middle class folks people pulling off the road in their (converted T5) camper van and dumping dog waste and empty bottles in the morning because its inconvenient to carry them around all day and utterly about having the police move on anyone who looks like a traveller when two of them go into the asda car park at the same time to get the weekly shop.
the law is about is it bad to be a traveller.
No, the law is about people living on private land thats not theirs.
As said the provision of traveller land is a separate issue that needs resolving to reduce the need for travellers to sometimes be forced to set camp on private land but then you'll always get the extreme types who think its their god given right to go where they want as is the historical travellers way.
I have some sympathy for the traveller community as they absolutely need more council owned land sites on which they can stay. There’s one on the outskirts of Sheffield in Lodge Moor but I’m not aware of any others and it’s clearly not big enough.
What I have no sympathy for is the blatant criminal damage which occurs hand in hand with travellers setting up on private land. The company I work for owns a number of park and ride sites and old (no longer in use) bus depots and it costs a relative fortune correcting the aftermath. From memory one depot alone has cost about £30k in the last year.
SECTION 44 OF THE TERRORISM ACT 2000. End of.
Let's take 2008-2009.
Section 44's invoked about 200,000 - 250,000 in that one year.
That's a lot of terrorists the coppers were putting the dabs on. Any coppers in here? - They will back me up. Hundreds, indeed, hundreds of thousands of kiddy killing, walking suicide bombers stopped.
Like Mr Wolfgang. Link
If we allow MPs to make badly formed laws, the Police WILL use them. They will use what they can, when they can - I'm not having a dig - they don't like ambiguous, interpretive legislation but if they are given an omni-law, they will use it.
See this link for the ****ing ludicrous use of the above laws: Linky
What I have no sympathy for is the blatant criminal damage which occurs hand in hand with travellers setting up on private land.
I think you will find it's the settled community taking the opportunity to dump waste, cause criminal damage, and go to the toilet in the open and blame the traveling community for it.
I think you will find it’s the settled community taking the opportunity to dump waste, cause criminal damage, and go to the toilet in the open and blame the traveling community for it.
Yeah I just can't wait for travellers to show up so I can indulge my public toileting fetish 😀
For everyone that's digressing into a discussion about travellers there's a new thread for you here...
https://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/the-travelling-community-and-the-new-bill/
Keep this one to a discussion about footpaths and the new Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill 2021.
To the OP that asked what type of footpath. Presumably this Bill could equally apply to both dotted OS lines and footpaths next to road, i.e. 'sidewalks'.
Those who say no it won't have the potential to criminalise cyclists on both the above categories, i.e. dotted lines and pavement type footpaths can you clarify why this is? I'm still unclear.
I’m still unclear.
There's a specific offence of cycling on a footway attached to a carriageway (sidewalk) already, as opposed to cycling on a footpath (perhaps across a field or moor) , which is a trespass against the landowner.
OK, so focusing on OS dotted line footpaths, the breach of civil law null and voids any breach of criminal law, specifically with regards to cycling on the footpath?
Unless I'm very much mistaken this is the bit you're getting hett up about re trespass. It's not about trespass.
The green paper if you're interested enough
This is probably me being thick but how, as a random cyclist, would I get arrested? If A landowner or someone tells me to get off their land I’ll just cycle off. It’s not like I’m going to stop and offer them my details. What are they going to tell the police? “A bald man with a beard was cycling here” good luck with that being followed up.
Will they add footpath ranger to the police. Bobbies in bushes has got a nice ring to it.
OK, so focusing on OS dotted line footpaths, the breach of civil law null and voids any breach of criminal law, specifically with regards to cycling on the footpath?
Cycling on a footpath (your green dotted line) is not illegal if it's away from a carriageway.
If there's a green dotted line o a map, next to a road, which has a defined footway on it, is illegal (in some circumstances).
This is probably me being thick but how, as a random cyclist, would I get arrested? If A landowner or someone tells me to get off their land I’ll just cycle off.
If the landowner had a particular grudge against cyclists and so set up a camera trap that over a period of a few weeks showed systematic use of a footpath by a cyclist will this new Bill provide them with ammo to provide the police with video/photographic evidence who can then launch criminal proceedings against the cyclist. This is what I want to know.
dangeourbrain
Full Memberthis is the bit you’re getting hett up about
Not sure why you need to be condescending however cheers for the links.
This is important to many people on this forum, not all because I know many of you aren't keen cyclists, but the new Bill could affect many otherwise law abiding cyclists who need to use a path to avoid certain roads. This topic could easily be lost amongst all the other issues being raised by the Bill so each issue needs to be raised separately.
@Jimdoubleyou There's no present tense involved with this issue. The Bill has not been passed yet.
@Jimdoubleyou There’s no present tense involved with this issue. The Bill has not been passed yet.
Nothing I've written about the difference between footpaths and footways is changed by the bill...
If the landowner had a particular grudge against cyclists and so set up a camera trap that over a period of a few weeks showed systematic use of a footpath by a cyclist will this new Bill provide them with ammo to provide the police with video/photographic evidence who can then launch criminal proceedings against the cyclist. This is what I want to know.
They’d still need to spend considerable money and resources finding out who the cyclist is though. I can’t imagine the police have either going spare to warrant following up.
OK, so focusing on OS dotted line footpaths
You state if challenged " I believe that higher rights exist for this public right of way and I will continue to exercise them until settled at a public inquiry" and if you feel the need "I will ensure that a claim for these rights exists and support it at the public inquiry or will make sure on is lodged with the relevant authorities with urgency"
If you honestly think that money and influence can’t buy you a more favourable version of the law in this country, then you are living in la-la land.
Ive seen this applied in cases of drink driving. A flat refusal to take a breath test will result in a conviction, but not one of actually being over the limit.