[Closed] RoW question - is pushing or carrying your bike on a footpath legal?

As I understand, there isn't at the moment a conclusive answer to this.
There was a case some years back when a person was hit by a car pushing their bike across a pedestrian crossing. The defence claimed that the bike was an unnatural accompaniment to a pedestrian (on footpaths a bicycle is not considered a natural accompaniment, as say a pram would be). The judge decided that a bike was a perfectly reasonable accompaniment under such cases.
Whether this extends to public footpaths has yet to be established, and almost certainly never will be.

*SFB* You can ride wherever you like *SFB*

On a more legal note, you can ride wherever you like. The law says that a footpath for instance has proven rights for people to use it on foot, without prejudice as to higher rights which may exist. If you are riding a footpath and are "caught", you may be asked to leave by the most direct route, but only by a police officer, the landowner, or the landowner's agent - a random walker for instance cannot require you to leave. Same goes for taking you details by the way. It is NOT a criminal offence unless a specific local bye-law has been passed, e.g. such a law has been passed within the peak district.

as for carrying vs pushing, personally if they ask me to leave I'll offer to ride away by the most direct route, or will push, but there's no way I'd carry a bike at someone else's request - only if the ground conditions dictated that it was easier to carry, in which case I probably wouldn;t be riding there anyway

Up near the top of Altar Lane by any chance?

Newly arsey landowner up there by all accounts. You could leave your bike on the B/W and walk alone across the footpath & he'd still have a go

Are prams legal? What about micro scooters? Roller blades? Space Hoppers?

I think we should be told...

You got it John.

It was never my intention to cycle across the land which I know to be a footpath and note the new signs (which appear official) referencing various acts and giving the contact details of the local RoW officer. Later I noticed that they claim that carrying and pushing is also prohibited. It's only a couple of hundred yards. So we decided to push.

Was physically confronted and pushed in the chest when I attempted to cross the stile part way across. I offered to carry my bike, even asked if it'd be OK if I took the wheels out. No. Apparently.

All these are interesting issues Peter but I'm specifically interested in the case of bikes.

I'm considering doing something about what happened to me if at all possible.

Would be keen to meet local bikers and see if we can get something moving to resolve this rediculous state of affairs.

If anyone pushed me in the chest I'd be putting in a formal complaint to the old bill (or better again **** him one!!)

The brave boy was a good 2 stone heavier than me and some inches taller.

Was seriously rattled at the time.

I'm afraid I ended up calling him a tosser.

And remember that there is a diffence between a footpath and a pavement, AFAIK its illegal to ride on a pavement, but not on a footpath.

And TBH the only law you could be accused of breaking is trespass, and that requires 'intent' to commit a crime. So calling him a 'to55er' was probably correct.

Cornwall say no
[url= http://www.cornwall.gov.uk/default.aspx?page=12967 ]Full Page[/url]

No bicycles on footpaths

Last updated: 26/10/2009 Add to My Bookmarks

Did you know that you shouldn't take your bicycle on a footpath?

You can take:

A dog - dogs must be kept under close control, preferably on a lead and ;
A pram, pushchair or wheelchair - but please expect stiles and gates unless advertised as an easily accessible route
However, in law a bicycle is not considered to be a 'usual' accompaniment on a footpath. To push (or carry) a bicycle is, therefore, to commit a trespass against the holder of the land over which the path runs.

More interesting reading [url= http://www.propertypedlars.org.uk/advice-frame.htm ]here[/url] potentially a pedal cycle looses it's vehicle status once the rider dismounts but it is all very grey. A bike carried on your back is in effect an interesting wheeled rucksack, it only takes the legal form of a bike when it is ridden.

Most information says never tested in court of law as presumably if the case was lost it would form a huge precedent on the definitions of Footpaths/Bridleways etc

call the RoW officer, tell them that he pushed you and ask them what future action you should take

(encourage everyone else using the path to do the same if/when it happens to them)

Ed: I also think that it's very reasonable to carry a bike if the FP links 2 bridleways (or a road and BW). However, if you're using this carrying lark as a cover for poaching trails - stop doing so on this geezer's land or assume the confrontations will continue and escalate

[i]Was physically confronted and pushed in the chest when I attempted to cross the stile part way across. I offered to carry my bike, even asked if it'd be OK if I took the wheels out. No. Apparently.[/i]

at best that's a criminal assault by the landowner. Call the old bill. And then Bradford Council RoW officer. and organise a mass trespass.

in the meantime, if you're wanting to cross Harden Moor, and this is the b/w - f/p where you had the problem: [url] http://www.streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?X=407250&Y=439565&A=Y&Z=120 [/url] - then there's another permissive b/w which goes all the way across, approx 1/4 a mile nearer to Harden - here: http://www.streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?X=408050&Y=439290&A=Y&Z=120.

It's also arguably more interesting from a MTBer point of view

That map shows it as a f/p but I've been riding it for at least 8 years and it's marked on the ground as a permissive bridleway

@Grittyshaker, I sometimes use that route in the summer to get to work and have ridden through the field on and off for the last 15 years or so without incident. If you take it further I'd be interested to know what happens.

The BW/footpath classification seems a bit arbitary as the BW finishes at the field wall and as such doesn't go anywhere.

EDIT Did you cross the field or turn back in the end?

I don't know whether it's legal to carry a bike on a footpath - but it's assault to be pushed in the chest by someone, tosser or not.

Might be worth asking the local RoW officer what the 'footpath' is really classified as on the definative map. Could be a Bridleway anyway and the new landowner is just being a tosser

Ernie and Repack - please could you take this somewhere else? I am seriously trying to get some answers to an issue which will chime with a lot of people on here.

@ Simon - I've also used that footpath since I started biking in the late 80s. I'll admit that I've sometimes ridden along it, but sometimes it's been nice to walk it (you can see Pen y Ghent from there). Since the signs have gone up though, I've always walked it so as not to annoy anyone. It's only 200 metres or so. [u]The path is definitively a footpath[/u]. It's got "squeeze stiles" at each end.

@ hamishthecat - Landowners can use "reasonable force" to eject trespassers. If I was trespassing he probably used reasonable (though unpleasant) force. In pushing or carrying my bike on a footpath am I a trespasser? It's this I'm trying to resolve before taking it further.

I have contacted the RoW Officer to ask:

Are the signs yours?
What specific law prohibits "pushing and carrying"?
If this is a local interpretation of the law (in absence of statute or established case law) why is it such a mean one?

I'll let you know how I get on. A mass trespass could well be on the cards. Any locals fancy meeting to discuss a sensible approach? Please PM me.

play nicely now,

as of 30 seconds ago, my response to the age-old 'you're not allowed bikes on here' has been

"itsa [i]permissive[/i] footpath...' - followed by a patronising eye roll.

I think contacting RoW Officer is probably the best approach. A mass trespass could be interesting.

@ Simon - Agree. I'll await the outcome from the RoW.

If I'm told that this is a local interpretation of the law by Bradford Met's RoW Dept. I'd be inclined to challenge it. As it appears to be in the interests of one person's objection rather than the reasonable enjoyment of the many. It may be that Bradford Met are under more pressure from the landowner to yield to his preferred interpretation than they are of ours and I'd like to change this if there appears scope to do so.

Agree. Not a mass trespass. A mass legitimate use. A large group of people pushing/carrying their bikes (in part or dismantled) from both ends at the same time could indeed be interesting.

I don't know much about rights of way hence I didn't respond. The push in the chest is assault tho - I'd report it to the police and the ROW officer.

Ernie - ta but I was ignoring him

Big and daft - grow up and try not to live up to your name.

@ TJ - The push in the chest wouldn't be assault if I was trespassing. It'd be reasonable force. Was upset and angry at the time though. It's just I'm not sure I was trespassing. This is what I'm trying to find out.

Have told the RoW officer what happened. If they tell me that the signs are not theirs or that the prohibition on pushing and carrying is a local interpretation of the law. I'll think about challenging both the local authority to change their interpretation and/or the landowner for assault.

I should say. Please, everyone, be careful at the location. The landowner is a physically assertive and capable person. It only takes him to have got out the wrong side of the bed one morning and things could be worse than a shove in the chest.

I had to turn back.

@ John Drummer - You're right about the alternative permissive route but the route I was using, including the 200 meter push/carry on the footpath makes a satisfying anticlockwise of circuit of Harden Moor which, as far as I know, I'm entirely within my rights to complete. We'll see.

@ Big-n-daft - Thanks for the pointer towards the CTC. Not so daft in the end!

PS - Will post an alert about this location on the Riding forum.

grittyshaker - Member

@ TJ - The push in the chest wouldn't be assault if I was trespassing. It'd be reasonable force. Was upset and angry at the time though. It's just I'm not sure I was trespassing. This is what I'm trying to find out.

It depends, it's not "reasonable force" unless you were actively refusing to depart.

As NBT says - he only has IIRC the right to ask you to leave by the shortest available route and can only use reasonable force if you refuse - and the force must be commensurate with risk / damage you are causing him / his land

i've been up there today and luckily we didn't bump into the aggressive landowner - My mate who I was riding with is in the marines and has just spent 8 days in the nevada desert doing advanced high level parachute training with American special forces - he arrived home on Saturday morning and was very tired/grumpy. I wouldn't have wanted to be there if he was pushed in the chest by this guy.

Thanks for the tip - ill avoid in future.

Ianmunro and NBT are pretty much spot on on this - there is, unfortunately, no definitive answer at the moment.

I think "reasonable force" would only occur if you had refused or delayed leaving, however since its likely a bit of argument both ways and raised temperatures both sides then I doubt anything would come of it.

I'd be keen to challenge the ROW department to justify their position, The position of "natural accompaniment" is a somewhat outdated interpretation due to being superseded by the the caselaw - probably worth mentioning DPP Vs Jones, which is quite clear that the test is one of reasonableness

The question to which this appeal gives rise is whether the law today should recognise that the public highway is a public place, on which all manner of reasonable activities may go on... ... Provided these activities are reasonable, do not involve the commission of a public or private nuisance, and do not amount to an obstruction of the highway unreasonably impeding the primary right of the general public to pass and repass, they should not constitute a trespass

I'll post this up on the BikeMagic > North Leeds forum thread - we do the Harden/St Ives/Altar Lane/Cullingworth/Manywells/Wilsden circuit on a very regular basis and we don't want to rub this fella up the wrong way until RoW man has had his say.

I have a feeling that this will all end in tears. If he is as agressive as he's been painted on more than one occasion, a visit by the RoW officer may just make him worse.

Just a thought - not a well known former show-jumper of these parts is it?

anyone got a spare wheelchair? I fancy riding one over a footpath!

[i]A dog - dogs must be kept under close control, preferably on a lead and ;[/i]

I think you'll find that on a footpath/bridleway on private land you have to have your dog on a lead.

Br - I don't think so - under close control tho which [i]usually[/i]means on a lead but if your dog will follow at heel without running off then that will do

anyone got a spare wheelchair? I fancy riding one over a footpath!

hehe.........I like it 😀

Although even better ............ a "recumbent" wheelchair 8)

[img] [/img]

I think the others have covered the fact it is a grey area quite well. We're not going to definitively know whether you can carry your bike until someone with a stck of cash and no brains tries to sue someone doing it.

Just a thought but isn't there and appeals process for reviewing the status of footpaths mis-categorised in the 60s (when most rights of way were reclassified). This sort of thing happened a lot, one guy would walk along a route and aclassify it as a bridleway, his colleague would come in from the oppostie direction and classify that part as a footpath. Might p*ss the landowner off a bit. I know you shouldn't be there but really what's the harm, particularly if you're pushing or carrying your bike. The guy's a knob and he's behaving like it.

PS I've just discovered that it's OK to lead horses and mules etc. on bridleways but heaven forbid you try and drive a llama across one 🙄

Trust me I'm a Rights of Way Officer..... and have been for over 20 years...

If I was the man in the street I'd probably be happy taking up NBT's advice although it's not necessarily particularly correct advice. I would also like to commend Scaredypant's contribution.

The bottom line of what is allowed or not on a right of way is defined in the Highways Act.. it's available as is all current legislation online at www.uk.gov.com.uk or something like that, on that basis the only lawful way to cycle on is a Byway Open to All Traffic, or RuPP (now Restricted Byway) and public roads. Cycling was introduced on bridleways by the Countryside Act 1968 by removal of the offence they committed by doing so, prior to that all highways legislation lumped cycles in with carriages, so Cyclists could only expect to go anywhere you could go with a Pony & Trap.

The Countryside Act acted not by extending cyclists rights but simply removed the offence of taking a cycle onto a bridleway from statute, in doing so ensured no landowner or highway authority had any obligation to ensure the bridleway was fit and suitable for cycling which had a right to cycle been created would have been the case had it been amended in the Highways act definitions.

So what about walking / carrying bikes? most times I encounter this is when someone chooses to seek a defence for when being caught cycling on a path by swiftly dismounting to become a pedestrian I have no doubt the law as currently drafted and case law could create any defence.

if, however, a landowner met a walker using the path carrying goods or property that might be wheeled and even be capable of propulsion then as long as it does not touch the surface of the right of way then the landowner should have no reason to consider challenging the walkers rights.

I can't see how the law would ever be changed to restrict those cutting through from one bridleway to the other who do so carrying a bike on their shoulder or back, however it is clear that footpaths were designated to be free of cyclists and as a legal principle this is common across much of europe and america where such designation usually excludes non pedestrians with sanctionable penalties for breaches.

If riders try pushing bikes to extend their riding opportunities when caught they will also be pushing the boundary on this one and doing so I think it is more likely that the government might choose to introduce the kind of restrictive legislation needed that firmly keeps cyclists off footpaths rather than extending the designation to enable paths to be used by cyclists. There are more groups than the landowners and ramblers who would push for legal action and example being the disabled who have made strong representation on the dangers to disabled pedestrians from cyclists that has already the government listening.

This is the field in question
[img] http://images.fotopic.net/?iid=11chf3&outx=800&quality=70 [/img]
Line of path goes leftwards from gate to meet, and follow, the wall to a stile.

That sign is not a council sign

Thank **** I live in Scotland

Thank **** I live in Scotland

Nope that's not a Council Sign and if a council erected one it would be meaningless as it is for the landowner not the council (or another users) to say who cant use a right of way, to be fair track looks sunken.. field edge and fitted with gates and evidence horseriders are trying to use it..., if someone told me that was an old road I'd not be looking too shocked. If there is no stile and that gate is padlocked he's probably blocking the footpath too

There's an election coming up. Many marginal seats.

Maybe it's time to hit the pollies to get the same freedoms in England as we have been enjoying in Scotland. Basically the right to go anywhere within reason.

There's enough Scottish pollies in Westminster for this to get a bit of a run.

"That map shows it as a f/p but I've been riding it for at least 8 years and it's marked on the ground as a permissive bridleway "
If you zoom in from your 1:50k map to the 1:25k map it shows it as a permissive bridleway

"No mountain bikes or horses"
Theres your solution, take a CX bike!

The level of pedantry in the English and Welsh footpath laws never ceases to amaze me... Again, very glad I live in Scotland!

whats the definitive map say?

If something's marked as a permisive bridleway, am I wrong in thinking this would've been granted by a previous landowner & can be removed by a present landowner? If not, what's the difference between a normal bridleway & a permisive?

I cant believe that its so anal in England, I mean what difference does a few mountain bikers going through a field on a path make?? Is it a pre-requisite of being a landowner that you have to be a total tw*t? Even if that field were mine, I couldnt bring myself to go up to anyone and say "Get orf my land!". Unless of course they were driving a JCB or something!
Again, thank **** for being north of the border!

I thought the "normal accoutrement" argument (ie pram ok, cycle not) related to the part of the highways act that refers to footways along the side of the highway - ie pavements....

MaxHeadset - I respect your 20 yrs experience as a ROW officer, but have to take isue about the no expectation of bikes or horses on footpaths. Surely that is nonsense. There is simply no public right to use horses or bikes. If I were the landowner, or had his / her permission then there would be no issue of trespass irregardless of what vehicle / manner of transport.

Land laws are insane, archaic leftovers of feudalism, presided over by knobs in 'their' countryside. Just push your bike on it everyday to piss him off.

I can understand people not wanting the public walking all over their fields and letting animals out of gates etc, hence I can see the landowners points in that respect, though obviously they bought the land with those paths already through it and need to accept that). I can't see the argument against one particular type of (non-motorised) transport though, that seems odd. English RoW laws are a bit odd and unhelpful, but I really don't think scotland is THAT much different, I've come across dozens of "private land, keep out" signs around simply fields and lochs, though as yet I've not been chased, I can't see it being long before I do.

They have no right to chase you in Scotland, I think thats the key difference. Although I think there are some restrictions on open mountainsides here and there due to Deer stalking seasons and the like, although Ive never came across any restrictions or problems. In Scotland, there seems to be more of a "lets get along" attitude, although you may get the odd grunt from walkers. Ive had much more problems, and abuse from pedestrians in Glasgow on my commute, where the cycle path and pavement are shared.

but I really don't think scotland is THAT much different, I've come across dozens of "private land, keep out" signs around simply fields and lochs

Hangovers from prior to the Land Reform Act, and you can safely ignore them... (I believe)

scottyjohn - yeah, you can understand restrictions when people are out shooting I suppose! I agree it seems to be more "getting along" in attitude, as an alien here i'm programmed to respond to "private" signs as any Englishman would - "can I sneak through without being caught?" 🙂

Hangovers from prior to the Land Reform Act, and you can safely ignore them... (I believe)

They actually look like new signs, up on the road out towards carron valley there's a little loch, I was considering popping the kites up and trying to surf on it but it feels incredibly "wrong" somehow - years of prohibition!

lol Id go for it! Your not a motorised water craft so no harm no foul! Plus you could say that it doesnt say "NO KITESURFERS" so you didnt know 😆

mansonsoul - Member
Land laws are insane, archaic leftovers of feudalism, presided over by knobs in 'their' countryside. Just push your bike on it everyday to piss him off.

Tell him you want the same freedoms as in Scotland and your vote depends on it. You should not be prepared to be a feudal serf any more.

coffeeking - Member
...but I really don't think scotland is THAT much different, I've come across dozens of "private land, keep out" signs around simply fields and lochs, though as yet I've not been chased, I can't see it being long before I do.

Probably on land owned by wealthy English people.

The signs can and should be ignored if they are infringing on your right of access. Report illegal signs to your local council. Trying to prevent lawful access can result in prosecution in Scotland, and if anyone tried it on me, I would be ensuring that happened.

lol Id go for it! Your not a motorised water craft so no harm no foul! Plus you could say that it doesnt say "NO KITESURFERS" so you didnt know

One day I'll pluck up the 'nads!

Probably on land owned by wealthy English people.

The signs can and should be ignored if they are infringing on your right of access. Report illegal signs to your local council. Trying to prevent lawful access can result in prosecution in Scotland, and if anyone tried it on me, I would be making sure that happened.

Noted, I'll do it when I collect more info!

i suggest that we start quoting arcane laws when hassled by walkers,

for example;

grumpy walkist: 'you're not allowed to ride a bike on here'

cyclist: 'why not?'

grumpy walkist: 'it's a footpath'

cyclist: 'it's quite clear, that section 72 of the highways act - 1835, only applies to footpaths running along the side of a road'

etc.

RKK01 sorry yes you are right you could meet a horse on a footpath but in my reply I was not referring to a chance encounter with a ridden horse tractor or mx bike on the same land that the path ran through that was there with the landowners consent. I referred to the likely hood / expectation of one walking member of the public not encountering another member of the public on horseback.

In AH Whiles case the walker has no right to point out to anyone exercising other use without rights it is a matter for the landowner, who in fact maybe, unknown to the walker, completely happy to see other users on the path although neither broadcasts the fact nor realises if they take no effort to control it a public right may possibly be created. This is fundamentally how the 20 year principle in the Highways act is triggered. I get regular complaints from walkers ringing up to complain that their walk on a footpath was ruined by the appearance of another user who should have been there. With as much tact as possible I try to explain that the decision as to applying tolerance or control over who uses land that is crossed by a public path rests with the landowner not the council or other users.

I do not condone anybody riding on what are clearly designated and intended to be only footpaths other than as an emergency exit from hostile conditions in the mountains, however we all know there are many tracks crossing the mountains that old records and physical appearance tells you it is more than a footpath, in that situation where you sincerely believe your right exists, you have a right to exercise it irrespective of what the definitive map says although you should be able to offer some proof to support your contention, the only problem is whether anyone will intervene on your behalf if that use is challenged by the landowner until the mistake is corrected on the definitive map.

People like Byways and Bridleways Trust I find is usually a far better source for highway law for higher rights users than mtb or 4x4 forums,

Max Headset - Thanks, that response sits very well with my own understanding. As you say (and I alluded), often it is walkers who complain about other users, and not the landowner or their agent.

Many of the trails where I ride are footpaths, and I accept I have no protected legal right to ride them. That said, I have previously asked at least one of the local landowners and he has been unconcerned about mtb use - mainly because the trails are old mountain / forest roads and the official designation doesn't really match with the use made by the local community (especially horse riders). If asked to leave by a landowner I would.

Gritty - not sure if we can help but you're welcome to ask for help on the SingletrAction.org.uk website.

Been shoutted at a few times myself, never much fun 😉

Byways and Bridleways Trust probably a good port of call.

Tim aka Cheeeky Monkey aka SingletrAction Chair.

take your pram on the footpath and if challenged OWN em with it

take your pram on the footpath and if challenged OWN em with it

ride where you like. its legal to walk on a footpath, but that is different from it being illegal to ride on one. claim you're ensuring 'prior use'. when in doubt, shrug shoulders

Do you feel we are pushing it regards ROW.
On my own patch I've become quite Bolshie about it. I use footpaths because I know that if the landowners wanted to carry out more felling then the paths would disapear overnight, so they can't be that special.
I also believe that walkers and cyclists can co exist quite nicely, and whilst horse riders are accepted even where they shouldn't be they do leave a trail of damage as do MXers and 4X4ists.
Though this is my own opinion based on an area I know well.

I also respect the land I'm on i.e I was huffing and puffing at a horse rider that rode along the side of a well trodden path throwing up clumps of grass that has struggled to get a foothold in the sand over the last few years. To me that's more important that actual ROW.

I have had a very prompt, but not very encouraging, response from Bradford's RoW Officer which I will post in due course.

In the meantime, thanks for all the supportive and informative comments. It was quite a tough weekend, partly as a result of this confrontation, and you've all been helpful in allowing me to vent if nothing else!

Cheers

buy a hovercraft.

Sheffield council have passed a bylaw saying you can't push a bike on a footpath

oldgit - no, not pushing hard enough

track = row = footpath, bridleway, RUPP, BOAT, Restricted Byway, Byway (and whatever else they're called now).

ramblers have 100%+ (yes 100%plus) all tracks PLUS right 2 roam, plus coast path when it turns up, national paparks, nat trust etc etc etc.

bicycles/horses - 21%ish (*mtb trail parks a nice bonus)

vehicles 3%ish (down from 5%)

I consider the Sheffield Council thing truly worrying as councils tend to flock like sheep in the same direction (and I like making up cicular off road routes). IMHO they should upgrade all footpaths except certain honey pot etc ones (ie create restricted footpaths, disallow bikes on them, allow bikes on footpaths - most footpaths not being restricted).

Write to your MP (faxyourmp.com) and local council.

Although we like to assume we've moved on, the problem with this countries land access laws are they start with the assumption that all land belongs to the monarch. Any access to any land really is a grant of the monarch.

The land laws need to be rewrote the other ways round. We need to start from the assumption that everyone (at least on foot has access to all land. Exceptions due to privacy farming industry then need to created.

So laws need to be passed to restrict land access rather than the current system where generally laws have to passed to grant access to land.

grittyshaker - Member

Was physically confronted and pushed in the chest when I attempted to cross the stile part way across.

That's assault isn't it?

[i]Sheffield council have passed a bylaw saying you can't push a bike on a footpath [/i]

What!

http://www.sheffield.gov.uk/roads-and-transport/cycling-and-walking-and-prow/prow/definitive-map

When they say footpath, do they also mean pavement?

I wonder what effect EU law has on this?

I wonder if you could get your bike classified as a motability scooter then you could ride it on footpaths.

If you read the Sheffield link it is just explaining the law as it is, they have no additional legal powers.

they should upgrade all footpaths except certain honey pot etc ones (ie create restricted footpaths, disallow bikes on them, allow bikes on footpaths - most footpaths not being restricted).

Problem is that to add rights to a right of way it is not simply a matter of posting a notice in a newspaper and telling everyone to get out and use them. The EU Human Rights legislation is quite specific on what private property owners can expect from the threat of authorities imposing actions reducing their enjoyment of their property. In order to utilise legal powers the council would have to show an actual public benefit would arise for a large segment of society before it could raise a paths status. Having made the order the Council would be obliged to compensate the landowners for any loss the act causes them. Most often this is the loss in value land suffers from when additional public rights are created that means more access by the public results in less privacy.

Experience shows that where a landowner is not in agreement with increase of rights they will fight to the death for the highest level of compensation. Figures of £5000 per path are not usual but at the IMBA conferance a few years ago the Pennine Bridleway Project Officer was showing up to £20k was being given to landowners just to secure a hundred yards of bridleway.

The Scottish situation arose because its land ownership system had developed from historical Scottish practises and was not based on the feudal system introduced in England and imposed on Wales by William the Bastard and his Norman invaders. Without a large scale compensatory payment to all owners of land Scottish Access rights will be restricted to Scotland. Writing to MP's or Councils is just a waste of stamps and does little, you would be better stumping up some cash joining IMBA and let them use the money to get the rights mess sorted south of the scottish border

you would be better stumping up some cash joining IMBA and let them use the money to get the rights mess sorted south of the scottish border

Can't help but feel that increased public access should be tied into the conditions relating to farm/land EU subsidies.

Maybe it's time for a mass trespass?

If walkers hadn't done this in the past they would still have very little access to the countryside afaik.

We need to stop fannying around, Direct Action is the only approach that will work:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_trespass_of_Kinder_Scout

Rich - Member
Maybe it's time for a mass trespass?
If walkers hadn't done this in the past they would still have very little access to the countryside afaik.

Worked for the Ramblers in 1932.

So where would be the best place be for a mass "MTB Trespass" - Kinder Scout again or maybe Harden Moor?

Smart thinking Batman, a quick study of a history of the countryside access movement will show that before the ramblers formed a movement in the early 1930's organisations like the Peaks Footpath Society had been campaigning for 50 or more years for access to no avail, and it was not the ramblers themselves but a quasi communist group that organised the process so dont expect Captain Flasheart to come along if you do the same.. It took nearly another 20 -30 years for the eventual change required in law to take place and it was no doubt part because of the labour victory after the WW2, had the Tories got in they would have chummied along with their landowning chums.. trundle off up to Kinder Scout today they wil lhave some neat law to lock up you all up under the Tory laws aimed at eradicating travellers, road protestors and raves.. we'll come and visit al lthe martyrs in what ever gaol you find yourself

So, here's what my local RoW officer said:

"Many thanks for your recent email, please note below my comments on this matter.

A local landowner recently contacted the Councils Rights of Way Section regarding problems he was having with people cycling on a public footpath he has crossing his land. The landowner informs me that he has no issue with pedestrians legitimately using the public footpath but that he objects to the route being used by cyclists (including pushing/carrying).

The landowner has erected signs in an attempt to clarify the status of the footpath and has asked if the Council can assist him by formally signing the route in question as a public footpath. Signs the landowner originally put up have been vandalised but I have been informed that his new signs have included the contact details for the Councils Countryside and Rights of Way Section. The Council will formally sign the route as a public footpath and will clarify signage on an alternative permissive bridleway route in the area in due course.

The route in question is recorded on the areas Definitive Map as being a public footpath as it crosses land he controls. As a public footpath the route is open to pedestrian users only. A cyclist who rides on a footpath commits trespass against the holder of the land over which the path runs. Such action would be a civil matter between the cyclist and the landowner and the landowner may use 'reasonable force ' to compel a trespasser to leave, but not more than is reasonably necessary.

[u]With regards pushing/carrying cycles on a public footpath this appears to be a somewhat grey area of the law. Generally we would comment that a bicycle is not seen as a natural accompaniment of a user of a footpath, and that to push (or carry) one along a footpath is therefore to commit trespass against the landowner. [/u]Generally to take a pram, pushchair or wheelchair (if practical) and to take a dog (on a lead or under close control) are classed as being natural accompaniments. We do have powers under the Road Traffic Regulations Act 1984 to make regulation orders and bylaws to make the offence a criminal act but this is not something we have yet considered.

[u]As far as I am aware the 'natural accompaniment' clause has not been tested by case law but I am aware of the Crank v Brooks case and other similar judgements that appear to indicate that pushing a cycle on a pedestrian facility is being regarded as a pedestrian.[/u]

As things stand the route is recorded as a public footpath and it is unlikely knowing the sites history that additional rights have been gained (through use as this landowner and the previous owner appear to have challenged most cycle users). We have asked the landowner if he would be willing to allow the route to be used by cyclists/horse riders, but he has indicated that such use would conflict with his own use of the land.

I trust the above information is of use but please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of further assistance in this matter.

Regards

Darren Hinchliffe

Rights of Way Officer"

In summary, CBMDC support the position of the landowner in restricting all access to this footpath involving bikes; ridden (fair enough), pushed or carried. It seems, as alluded to by mAx_hEadSet, that the council are far more concerned at the compensation that may be payable to the landowner for erosion of their property rights than the legitimate dismay of a reasonable majority at CBDMC making this interpretation of the law. This, to me, is especially disappointing as Mr Hinchliffe makes specific reference to case law that regards people pushing bikes as pedestrians. A position that seems incompatible with CBMDC's interpretation.

I have written to Mr Hinchliffe expressing my dismay and to ask clarification on the circumstances under which it would be "generally" OK to push or carry a bike on a footpath. In this instance, other than for the objection of the landowner, it would seem like a prime candidate for exemption from this restriction.

In the meantime, loathe as I am to advise bikers to avoid this area, I feel that for anyone to attempt to visit this location with a bike is to risk injury from the landowner who will make strenuous physical efforts to prevent people from pushing or carrying their bikes along this public footpath. Go there at your own risk.

Report the landowner to the police for assault. Pushing you in the chest isn't reasonable force to get you to leave, as has already been pointed out that clause only applies if you were actively refusing to depart anyway...

Shame the ROW officer didn't have anything to say about that...

For the record - I did refuse to leave and the landowner pushed me in the chest as I attempted to carry my bike past him.