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

Surely the answer is for lots of people to go up there and carry their bikes across the footpath. Not all at once, but separately. If he is set on assaulting anybody doing so, and all of these individual incidents get reported to the police then surely that is sufficient evidence to get an injunction keeping him away from that footpath!

what is the position with 'landowner or an appointed factor thereof' (or whatever it is) -ie anybody can say this when challenging you - but can you argue that without some form of identication etc that you could ignore them ?

As far as I can see the crank/brooks case was 1980, it would have to be a council that took it further as the legal system costs are beyond the individual people who fund it - mind you if another case reversed that decision that would be pretty serious .........

Although I previously posted differently, I don't think a "mass trespass" would achieve anything other than getting us a bad rep.

There have also been some posts about arguing the intracacies of the law with the landowner, defeating him with our unassailable logic. However my experience at this location was that a violent shove in the chest (reasonable force in ejecting a trespasser, I guess) proved to be pretty much the final word on the matter.

However my experience at this location was that a violent shove in the chest (reasonable force in ejecting a trespasser, I guess)

It is clearly difficult without the kind of knowledge that either Grittyshaker or the rights of way officer to adequately comment on this matter. The letter posted seems a fair statement of fact, indicating what options and courses of action are open to the council. If the route has always been a footpath and only a recent recreational need has caused use to happen then what he is saying is largely correct. The only area of hope would be in identifying evidence to show that when the path was first recorded as a footpath a mistake was made and higher rights had existed but were not known about or had been disregarded.

The issue of natural accompaniment is one that will take years to solve, it is unlikely any government will try to establish the matter through drafting legislation. The current case law is of low standing and there is contradictory case law. In order to get better case law will require two opposing parties willing to enter a legal dispute and who ever looses to have the nerve and money to take the matter to an appeal. Traditionally with appeal cases such as Rubenstein, Trevelyan and Godmanchester the appeal has been of such an important nature to walkers that the Ramblers Association are pushy enough and can see enough benefit to be willing to invest their limited funds in pursuing an appeal even knowing it could be lost.

For now the Ramblers seem willing to tolerate the uncertainty the meaning of natural accompaniment allows them and until walkers rights are seriously threatened by a restriction they will not be looking for a court fight for fear of loosing and getting a hostile decision setting them back. Cycling Organisations are notoriously absent from access based caselaw, which is unlikely to change given the increased costs of pursuing and particularly loosing appeals.

I think the most obvious thing threads like this continue to prove to me is that simply to ensure that riders have even a fundamental understanding of rights of way law above that needed by SFB, all the MTB magazines like ST should run more in depth serial features raising awareness of not only the law but also looking at how strategies for riders lobbying for better access could be more effectively managed and encouraging cyclists that spending to fund organisations that can help them get access laws favourably changed is as important as the thought of shelling out 3 times the amount you need to on a bottom bracket or headset with a sexy name on it.

My final position is that, given the grey area that exists around "natural accompaniment", my local authority have decided to protect the obscure interests of an individual rather than the reasonable interests of pedestrians pushing or carrying bikes. It looks so much like a decision could be argued either way and in this instance the local authority should have sought to protect the interests of a relatively harmless majority, particularly where so little harm can be demonstrated, where the footpath links two bridleways and where there is evidence that the path has previously been used by carriages (it has a gate, albeit always locked, at each end). The local authority have made me a trespasser in this case when they need not have done so.

From the top of my soapbox it looks a little like caving in to an assertive personality.

I won't be pressing charges for assault but I'll know where not to go for riding lessons or any other service the landowner might offer. I also know that I'm not the sort of person to push a much smaller person in the chest for wheeling their bike along a footpath to no-one's detriment. The landowner probably knows that he'll never entirely stop cyclists pushing their bikes on this footpath. I hope, for his sake, he's happy in sustaining such ill temper.

I'd advise all cyclists to get involved locally and nationally in access issues and to raise access with their local and national politicians this election time. Access laws, in England, are a hangover from the feudal system. They make serfs of the majority of reasonable people. It's time we moved on.

In the meantime, please take care at this location. It only takes a lapse of judgement on the landowner's part and people could be hurt.

grittyshaker - Member
My final position is that, given the grey area that exists around "natural accompaniment", my local authority have decided to protect the [b]obscure interests of an individual[/b] rather than the reasonable interests of pedestrians pushing or carrying bikes.

From the top of my soapbox it looks a little like caving in to an assertive personality.

I won't be pressing charges for assault but I'll know where not to go for riding lessons or any other service the landowner might offer.

I'd advise all cyclists to get involved locally and nationally in access issues and to raise access with their local and national politicians this election time. Access laws, in England, are a hangover from the feudal system. They make serfs of the majority of reasonable people. It's time we moved on.

In the meantime, please take care at this location. It only takes a lapse of judgement on the landowner's part and people could be hurt

The reasons I'm not taking this further with the police are:

1 - that the landowner is supported in their reasoning by the judgement of the local RoW. Both these bodies would hold that I was trespassing, had refused to leave, and that reasonable force was therefore justified.

2 - this was the first of two incidents that same day. The second involved a motorist who, through an appalling right turn manouvre, forced me to take evading action during which my bike contacted his car. The halfwit pieshop then leapt out of his car and threatened to "f'ing flatten" me.

Both these incidents shook me up somewhat and I have rather a lot on my plate at present with other matters. Sometimes it seems better just to let things go.

I am still in communication with the RoW officer though and I hope to get an explanation as to why the council has made the interpretation that they have in this situation.

I really do think, at the very least that this 'pushing' incident should be reported to the police. At least it is recorded and logged on the system. Anybody else experiencing the same sort of behaviour should also do the same. Sooner or later the police will have to pay a visit.
Don't ring 999. Call West Yorks police on 0845 6060606.

Just trying to add some common sense to this (which may be impossible with some idiots), but what was his actual objection to bikes passing along a 200m stretch of his land? Is it possible to do harm by carrying a bike on your shoulder and walking as opposed to weighing 30lbs more and not having a bike with you? Did he reason his argument?

Would it be worth contacting this bloke in a mature letter and trying to open discussions with him without him wanting or being able to hit/push someone?

He pointed out some damage to a barbed wire fence which he claimed was caused by "you lot". He also claimed to have been threatened on his land. The concept of the harm I was causing seemed entirely lost on him. He simply didn't want me there. In his belief I was a trespasser.

Given that he refused to accept that I could carry my bike (even dismantled) it seems to me that he is simply keen to apply the most restrictive interpretation of the law possible. He is supported in this by the position of the local RoW officer.

Perhaps someone else could write a letter to him. I've had my fill of confrontation for now. Last weekend was actually a very depressing episode.

So he may just be trying to restrict as many people from the land as he is legally entitled. I suppose if he had the choice, he would close the footpath entirely. Not just a simple grudge with cyclists, just anyone trying to use 'his' land. It just so happens he can pick on cyclists and not walkers.

how's about this then?

Lords Amendment No. 35: After Clause 26, in page 28, line 10, at end insert new Clause "E": "Any member of the public shall, subject to any orders made by a local authority, and to any byelaws, have the right to wheel a bicycle, not being a motor vehicle, on any footpath."

...if the additional qualification is made that a bicycle can be wheeled along a footpath, the question arises whether a pram can be wheeled on a footpath or whether something else with four wheels can be pushed on a footpath, and so on. [b]The position, broadly speaking, is that anyone can take anything on to a footpath[/b], unless there is a byelaw saying that he cannot. How he behaves when he is on the footpath may be the subject of byelaws, or it may be the subject of Common law.

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1968/jun/24/new-clause-e

Max Headset - I'm afraid I've got to take issue with you on this, the "natural accompaniment" argument really is an outdated concept, the DPP vs Jones test of reasonableness is a far more up to date, valid interpretation of the caselaw and makes it more than clear that the rights which extend to a highway extend to any reasonable use which does not interfere with the primary right to pass and repass - therefore anything from having a picnic to pushing your bike would be categorised on a test of reasonableness, which would be a different burden based upon the exact circumstances (pushing your bike along a footpath that joined two bridleways would clearly be more reasonable than one that was not, the same would apply to a dead end bridleway turning into a footpath at the parish boundary)

edit - retro83, thats an interesting one I have'nt seen before, could make an interesting "pepper v hart" discussion if it ever did get to court...

It's legal positions and professional opinion like the ones quoted above (thanks retro83, max_headset and others) that I hope to draw to the attention of my local RoW Officer.

It seems unlikely though that the council would change their mind as they appear to have painted themselves into a corner.

More concerned about legal challenge from landowners than from user groups perhaps?

@ Zulu-Eleven - though I was unaware of the more recent case law the point you make chimes exactly with my position. I was doing nothing which could be considered unreasonable.

The problem, however, is that the local RoW department supports the landowner in his assertion that a bike is not a "natural accompaniment" and that in pushing my bike I am therefore a trespasser. For the moment there seems no way round this and therefore I have not been to the police claiming assault.

How can we get the local RoW Officer to change their interpretation of the law and thus their support for the landowner in making their unreasonable restriction? The RoW Officer does use the caveat "generally" in describing their position.

I'd love some qualified help on this.

Anyone fancy meeting up to decide a campaign strategy?

@ retro83 - thinking the restriction on carrying/pushing bikes may qualify as an "order made by a local authority"

get 3 or 4 mates to push their bikes along this footpath, when the landowner kicks off and hassles you, report him for blocking the footpath.

you have no need to mention the bikes - they ARE a natural accompaniment.

(you wouldn't have to tell the ROW office that you were wearing socks, or had some change in your pocket - there is no difference)

this grumpy 50d deserves all the grief we/you can give him.

Gritty, ask for the specific details of the order then?

I had 2 mates with me at the time. We were unpreapared to be confronted in the way we were. My mates were not prepared to dig their heels in.

The landowner gave every impression that he'd resort to increasing levels of violence if I persisted. Given the size of the bloke there could only be one loser on the day. With my wedding in a fortnight I wasn't prepared to risk a broken nose.

For the record, I went back to the location on my own, to speak to the guy a couple of hours after the incident on saturday morning. I was scared, but determined not to be intimidated. He wasn't around. It was then I noticed the "no carrying/pushing" part of the signs and began to wonder whether my position was as solid as i'd previously thought.

Good luck to anyone in persuing a direct action approach. I hope I can make some headway through the RoW Officer before I go down that route (no pun etc. etc.)

@ retro83 - I'll keep posting the responses of the RoW officer to this thread.

Cheers gritty.

[i]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).[/i]

FOI request for details of discussions between council staff and landowner?

@ Dave - Thanks. I may yet make an FOI request but for the present the RoW Officer appears to have been quite open about their dealings with the landowner.

Interesting that the landowner claims to have had problems with people cycling but that he seeks to address this by prohibiting pushing/carrying also. On what grounds?

There seems to be a risk, from the council's point of view, that it may appear that some undue persuasive influence may have been brought to bear on them in making their interpretation.

While I agree with much about the discussion about improved access laws, and also while I think his 'assault' was over the top, basically it is a footpath on his land and he has the right to say who and what can go on it above and beyond the statutory allowance.

Interesting that the landowner claims to have had problems with people cycling but that he seeks to address this by prohibiting pushing/carrying also. On what grounds?

Because I'm sure as we all know, if he's not around we'd all try and poach the 200yds. If he is, we argue 'till we're blue in the face that we intended to push / carry all along. I'm sure he's also had his fair share of confrontations and hence he's just trying to detail exactly what his position is. Easier to ban bikes, full stop, than even suggest that under some circumstances they might be allowed.

Gritty, I think Dave's advice of an FOI request is a good one.

I'd be inclined to go back to the ROW office pointing out that by his own admission this is a grey area, however there is adequate evidence that you [b]may[/b] be within your rights and that unless and until someone can demonstrate categorically otherwise you are of the clear opinion that pushing a bike on a public footpath is legal, and that it is the councils legal duty to protect you in the enforcement of those rights, particularly where the landowner has already assaulted you and you are fearful that it may occur again. I'd also point out that the status of a route as public footpath is without prejudice to any higher rights that may exist, and that nowhere within the law has it been adjudged that a pedal cycle is [b]not[/b] a 'natural accompaniment' and that argument, if it ever even applied, has been superseded by the test of reasonableness laid out within DPP Vs Jones, which clearly states that:

The public’s right of access to the highway was not restricted to the right of passage and matters incidental or ancillary to that right. Rather, the public had the right to use the public highway for such reasonable and usual activities, including peaceful assembly on the highway, as were consistent with and did not obstruct the general public's primary right of passage along the highway.

@ theotherjonv - "he has the right to say who and what can go on it above and beyond the statutory allowance".

Are you sure?

Wouldn't that mean that any landowner could prohibit any user regardless of rights of way?

I'm sure that some people have ridden the 200 yards and they are almost certainly trespassers. He may have been threatened also and there are laws to deal with this too.

I am just keen to find out why, when a "grey area" presents itself, that the council have interpreted this wholly in favour of the landowner.

he has the right to say who and what can go on it above and beyond the statutory allowance"

Gritty - no, he's correct in this - however the question is what [i]exactly[/i] does the statutory allowance permit - and that answer is to be found in the quote above from DPP vs Jones!

I am just keen to find out why, when a "grey area" presents itself, that the council have interpreted this wholly in favour of the landowner.

Because very, very few PROW officers actually understand ROW law,(which is a goldmine of contradictory caselaw and practice from both statute and common-law over the past few hundred years) and hence simply quote verbatim out of date chapters from the blue book.

Ah, got you both!

You're saying that the landowner can extend access beyond that normally permitted.

Thanks

I’ve sat on the sidelines and watched this one with interest (and the other similar threads about the same stretch of footpath) as this is a path I know well and used to ride on a regular basis some years ago, as my mate tended to bring his dogs on a ride and it avoided the main road.
Gritty I’m full of empathy for you it sounds like a ride from hell and I’m guessing something you did not need. I have a great deal of respect for your decision not to purse this. I would say that from reading this thread that the landowner acted within his rights and within the law. Morally I feel that he is very wrong in his attitude and behaviour. It is a shame that the ROW officer has taken what seems like an un-enlightened response and hopefully your correspondence and highlighting recent case law may change his position, as Bradford council do seem to be bike friendly otherwise.
I think that the various calls for direct action will only inflame the situation and make any future access even more unlikely. This is a battle that as a group we need to walk away from. The rational behind this is that this is a short and uninspiring piece of track, that while provides a link between two bridleways, is no great loss to mountain biking (thought maybe convent to some), and the alternative is far better. I think as a group we may need to choose are battles carefully [casts a wistful eye across the Aire Valley & Ilkley moor]

"Because very, very few PROW officers actually understand ROW law,(which is a goldmine of contradictory caselaw and practice from both statute and common-law over the past few hundred years) and hence simply quote verbatim out of date chapters from the blue book."

And also because they are more persuaded by the legal and literal "strong arms" of landowners above user groups?

user groups

If there was ever a group of users without a proper, formal "group" I reckon it's MTBers.

I believe BradMet are promoting a permissive bridleway alternative route in the area in an attempt to pour oil on troubled waters. What the ultimate aim is I don't know.

@ breakneck - it's certainly been my experience that CBMDC are not unfriendly towards cyclists. I agree that direct action is not a good idea also. Not a great trail, I admit, but the footpath does allow a rewarding and short loop of Harden Moor.

Once I've bottomed out the reasoning for the decision making in this case. I would like to explore the opportunity to make joint representations to CBMDCs RoW Officer in order to get a better deal more generally in the district.

Agree about picking battles. A "braod front" approach is probably better.

Ah, got you both!

You're saying that the landowner can extend access beyond that normally permitted.

Yes, he can, but thats not relevant here - the important factor is what legal rights do you have on a footpath, nowhere does it say you have the right to push a bike, but, equally important, nowhere does it say you don't either... what the law actually says is that you can do [u]anything that is reasonable[/u]. given that this is a link between two bridleways, I'd argue that pushing a bike [b]is[/b] therefore reasonable.

What you could also point out to the PROW officer is that its clearly ridiculous that there is a footpath linking the two bridleways, and why was it not considered for upgrading in the PROWIP, if necessary via use of a S26 PPCO, having regard to the extent to which the path or way would add to the convenience or enjoyment of a substantial section of the public!

You're right Cheeky. Collective organisation (beyond getting a round in and sometimes not even that) is not a strong suit with bikers.

Did some digging with SingleTraction some years ago. Keep up the good work. I may be back.

Excellent, Zulu-Eleven.

Yes. I understand the lack of relevance.

Thanks for all the advice. I doubt a practical resolution to this particular case will be found anytime soon but I may be able to influence the PROW officer to think differently.

Sorry if this sounds a bit silly, but could your [i]drag [/i]your bike along the "footpath"?

@ buzz - On the one in question? Not without risking a shove in the chest.

somewhere up there got mentioned a couple of times an alternative permissive bridleway

- if a reasonable route to take to link a loop up then seems to me that the local council and ROW people have tried at least to be constructive around the problem and should be congratulated

the situation is regretful - one tactic I've used is to tell the landowner you will push for a change in status based on historical use and incorrect classification and that could mean motorbikes and 4WDs so its better if he ignores you but i suspect this is too far gone

Zulu-eleven you argue your point well but I find if you can say this I have to question your capacity to take make such a sweeping statement

Because very, very few PROW officers actually understand ROW law,

you are presumably inferring your own knowledge is greater than the majority of us, could you indicate what credentials might lead me to believe you could have a professionaly superior view of rights of way law.

Are you in chambers with Stephen Sauvain, George Laurence or Edwin Simpson who is a clear fan of DPP,, how many rights of way officers do you know or how much do you deal with them?

Fundamentals here are that grittyshaker is not claiming knowledge awareness of the existence of higher rights on the path so cannot be saying he in fact has a right, bit more the case he does not feel the landowner has the right to heave him off when he is walking with a bike. His photo shows a path with features not incompatible with the way having higher rights so I am not going to say it has no higher rights.

DPP v Jones is more of help in dealing with users exceeding the right to only pass and repass, such as stop to take a picnic particularly where in the past a landowner might object, it was always in principle incorrect that a person who suddenly taken ill or feint when walking a path could not lay down to rest until they got to the nearest road which some landowners would make you believe. It does not justify a trail rider pushing a motorbike on a bridleway anymore than pushing a bike on a footpath or a farmer droving cattle on a bridleway across another farmers land where the right is not recorded in the definitive map statement.

I can say from experience most rights of way officers have a considerable understanding of the law with very few relying on the walkers blue bible and are more inclined to refer to the RWLR or Sweet and Maxwell when dealing with the complexities of law the blue book is only a handy place to find relevant circulars and statutory instruments listed in one small book, They indeed often know substantially more than the solicitors and counsel that landowners wheel out to challenge authorities when they exercise their duties.

Former IMBA Northern England rep, half a dozen DMMO's, couple of public enquiries and liaison on multiple applications, working in liaison with BBTrust, CTC and BHS. used to deal with ROW officers pretty much weekly
and, [i]in my experience[/i] very few of them know much about the intricacies of the beyond their bread and butter work, such as bridge law or whether the surface of a ford forms part of the right of way or whether the PROW stops and begins again on the other side 🙂 There's no doubt that there is the experience and knowledge out there, but unfortunately most individual PROW officers have a fairly narrow remit and band of experience - more often than not individual counties departments repeat the same narrow cut and paste interpretation of the law from past PINS circulars as their "definitive" statement of what the law is.

as you well know

where the right is not recorded in the definitive map statement.

Despite your assertion that DPP vs Jones is about people stopping for a picnic, you're no doubt fully aware it was actually about people using a PROW for an organised large scale protest, and that the legal ruling from it is more than clear that [b]anything[/b] is permitted, as long as it is reasonable given all the individual circumstances, the judgement itself does not seek to limit the application of the rule in the way you profess.

[img] [/img]

[b]get orfff moy laaand[/b]

we need 200 t-shirts printing up with this on & a mass walk across this blessed footpath wearing said t-shirts. Would he get it? I doubt it. But it might be fun...

I do congratulate the local authority in the provision of a permissive bridleway which serves a useful purpose but it is not a replacement for the right of way in question.

Just to clarify a few things:

Knowing that the footpath was "hot" I was deliberate in not riding my bike. It was not my intention to antagonise the landowner by exceeding what I understood were my rights.

At the point I was challenged I was certain that I was within my rights to push my bike so I pressed them as forcefully as I could, shouldering my bike and attempting to get past the landowner.

At that point he pushed me in the chest and it was then clear that he was prepared to apply physical force in preventing me from progressing. As the landowner had told me that an off-duty police officer was exercising their horse nearby I then called "police" loudly and a woman approached who denied she was a police officer. I would have telephoned 999 had I been able to identify my location by name at that point.

A shouting match ensued. It was clear he wasn't going to budge and we departed on unpleasant terms; "tosser" said I, "arsehole" said he and made remarks about my bravery in retreat. I returned towards him briefly, remarking on his comparitively large stature and on how that reflected on his bravery.

A couple of hours later, once I'd cooled down, I returned to the site to investigate the situation more closely, perhaps to speak to him again (from the safety of the bridleway) more calmly and to demonstrate that I was not to be intimidated.

It was then I noticed that the signs also prohibited pushing and carrying and I was then unsure as to whether I was in the wrong and actually considered how I might make an apology to the landowner.

When I got home I posted this topic.

As demonstrted by the differences in interpretation arising from max headset and zulu eleven, it is clearly not straightforward!

Thanks all, however, for your comments of support and information.

Thanks for the cv Zulu-eleven some pedigree agreed, AK has been a close personal friend for a long long time and I am sure you are well versed with his own views on the wisdom of cyclists simply pushing their luck on access by relying on the weakness of trespass laws which he also believes will all end in tears when the lawyers and law draftsmen turn up.

I am not convinced you have come up across enough of a depth of rights of way officers to be able to get away with that statement 3 swallows dont make a summer. AK does seems to indicate the there are large variations in capability east of the Pennines but it certainly does not replicate across the rest of England and Wales.

Having handled more than a few DMMO's PPDOs, two House of Lords Appeals and a number of injunctions in order to either keeping paths open or the map correct, I have never lost one outright and if we're betting about DPP vs Jones is good enough to allow higher rights users to occupy public highway for which they fundamentally have no lawful right to be it is a lot different to a rabble of protesters using a footpath to protest about a nuclear base or animal testing labs, I do not think as a defence it would even start get you out of the shit if you find yourself pushing a bike across one of Madonna's fields or up the driveway of the O'Keefes and they are home when you do it.

If you want to encourage riders to take self action thinking the council will be forced to turn on the landowner, the danger is more real that the landowner could slap an injunction on those who turn up, cost them a small fortune and stop the rest, unless you can find evidence of forgotten historic rights on the path I would do as the Rights of Way officer advises and use the other permissive route.

I agree on much of what you're saying there Max - at the same time, I think I'm being clear that the Jones argument couldn't being used as a carte blanche, but there are certainly a number of routes where it would apply as a valid argument, the point being that its more reasonable on some routes than others...

I think that the way forward is for riders to put pressure on councils to take into account their abilities and duties under the ROWIP's - political pressure means a lot - my experience of many councils is that they are remarkably reluctant to use the catalogue of powers available to them, for example spending years on endless fruitless negotiation rather than S26'ing a route that is clearly in the public interest (for example a major Sustrans route, now held up for years due to a short missing link)

I do not think as a defence it would even start get you out of the shit if you find yourself pushing a bike across one of Madonna's fields or up the driveway of the O'Keefes and they are home when you do it.

More to the point, exactly what business is it of the ROW officer adjudicating on the law? Surely that's something for the courts if the landowner thinks it's worth the expense of taking it there - I'd love to see the ruling on how much loss had taken place when somebody had walked down a footpath carrying a bike rather than carrying a large rucksack. Or indeed when the landowner is attempting to defend himself from a charge of assault.

er because original poster asked

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

did you read much or just jump to your conclusion?

if, however, a landowner met a walker using the path carrying .... 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 would think his business is his business usually, do you tell bike mechanics to mind their own business when answering a question about mechanical issues..I never adjudicated, and you must have never come across landowners getting injunctive relief to get people off their land they don't want there.. it happens even if you don't want to hear about it.

er because original poster asked

Your Madonna et al line is a strawman - how exactly is a landowner going to get injunctive relief to prevent somebody doing something where it can't be proved they don't have a right to do it? A good parallel in untested law here is with water access. Despite landowners thinking they own the river access and paddlers continually "trespassing", the only recent case of damages awarded was a derisory amount (and involved other factors), whilst nobody has ever managed to bring an injunction to prevent such use. Given the similar lack of definitive law on pushing bikes on footpaths, the idea of somebody getting an injunction to prevent this is surely a joke?

Aracer I’m not sure that the parallel with canoeing is whole accurate, from memory (and I’ll admit that is many years since I was involved in such access negotiations) land ownership relates to the river bed and not the water that passes over it, so in effect so long as you don’t touch the bottom your ok – the real issue was with entrance & egress to and from the river and crossing the land to get too it – a futher complication was the ownership of fishing rights for stretches of river and what amounts to bigoted prejordice against other uses.
Again though this is a legal grey area. One thought the British Canoe Union does have a network of river officers who negotiate, lobby & represent the intrest of canoeist for a given strech of river – is there a cycling paral , or would this be a way forward

I've not read what the answer should be but using my common sense if you are pushing it you aren't riding it. You hardly get into trouble for pushing a bike on the pavement now do you?

Hora - to save this discussion going round in another circle you'd probably be better reading the rest of the thread. Not that the answer will be all that clear.

Is there evidence that the footpath is actually used by walkers? Just wondering as if it is not, can't the landowner get the ROW closed after a certain time without use, could they be going along this train of thought to prevent ALL access to their land?

Votchy there is no period of which no use of a public right can count to it's ceasing to exist, that only applies with private easements and is the reason why landowners confuse themselves over the issue. Once a highway always a highway, is the maxim and a path can only be lost through the undertaking of a legal act or an act of god that might remove the land on which it runs.

The fact is much to the chagrin of most landowners the Highways Authority of your council has a quasi judicial function and is the one first faced with determining if whether the conditions that give rise to a highway coming into existence under Highways Act 1980 S31 - 20 years use, or will consider an application made under the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 to have a highway added to or amended onto the definitive map. Unless an order made by the council is objected to then whatever decision it's officer came to, takes effect. Even if objected to it is decided by a planning inspector the decision goes nowhere near any courts until after the event has occurred.
The NFU and Country Landowners continually bang on about it and say Rights of Way Officers are biased towards rights users and a quick google on Marlene Masters should turn up the kind of rubbish they spout on about impartiality. Most Rights of Way officers do not sail to catch the wind of public opinion they deliver considered actions based on all the evidence and material facts and if they do not do so they will leave the authority open to public challenge,. They are so boxed in by Law, Government Circular and Case law that random decisions are rare.

Breakneckspeed makes a most relevant observations on why this process is failing off road cyclists. If Grittyshaker was a rambler there would be a whole local footpath committee out on the warpath now wanting to defend his rights. Cyclists seem to be increasingly content when this happens to all go and suck their thumbs on a forum cajoling each other into acts of disobediance rather than tackling the problems. One of these is most cyclists prefer to do their own thing and not belong to any organisation either because they cant be bothered or they cant find one they agree with, the other problem is we have too many bodies. In the last few years I have been asked by IMBA to investigate rights of way issues that were negative to cyclists interests in parts of Wales. Colin Palmer did an excellent job then to take on the council by challenging the orders they made however, he is only able to do this where they are legally obliged to consult with him and his resources to do it are very limited. Day after day cyclists are having problems unlawfully restricting their access and they come to nothing when the riders don't know what to do or they don't or can't be bothered to belong to any group that might help them. If any Rambler from anywhere in the UK has a problem, such as that reported, whether they be a member of the RA or not they can report the problem to the local, Welsh or London office any one of three local ramblers will be in touch with the local rights of way office and until they accept that no action can be taken, which is rare, they will not let the matter rest until it is resolved. This process is uniform across every county in England and Wales. The BHS are not that far different nor are the motorcycle trail riders or 4x4 users the only group absent from having such a network are cyclists. I believe in some counties you might find IMBA or the CTC active but they are so diluted and underfunded they have difficulty doing anything and since most cyclists with problems belong to neither they only represent a small group of riders. I believe all cyclists should belong or be willing to fund a cyling body to protect their rights and that there should to maximise effectiveness be only one body. The current BC, CTC, RSF, RTTC simply sees to much members money going to support duplicated organisation overheads that could be better spent on a single UK wide cycling body the most forceful lobbying group securing better outcomes for cyclists than we are getting now and that could still represent the individual interests that exist.

MaX - thanks for clearing that up, wasn't sure of the facts but glad someone is. Fully agree with your comments re cyclists and cycling bodies, I believe we are the biggest bunch of apethetic countryside users going and considering the cross spread of occupations and salaries that seem to be spouted on here you would think we could use some joined up thinking 😯

This is the one of the largest mtb forums, surely we could become a representative body to address these issues? I am a current IMBA member but I believe their contribution is a drop in the ocean due to lack of members/funding and regional representation.

Aracer I’m not sure that the parallel with canoeing is whole accurate, from memory (and I’ll admit that is many years since I was involved in such access negotiations) land ownership relates to the river bed and not the water that passes over it

Certainly a good parallel from the point of view that canoeists are another downtrodden group who have to resort to "breaking the law" to get reasonable access. Yes the BCU have lots of regional river officers, but until very recently all they've been doing is negotiating what amount to "permissive paths". From the point of view of being able to lobby somebody on the local council (as walkers and horseriders can), then there simply isn't that mechanism in place - though the interpretation of many if not most paddlers now is that where there is water there is a right of passage for boats, so it's not really clear how the council could adjudicate apart from take one side or another.

The thing is, what canoeists are now doing by taking the law into their own hands is effectively just going out and riding those footpaths, rather than worrying about the legal details. The obvious difference being that we think we do have a right to paddle rivers, whilst I'm quite happy to accept we have no right to ride footpaths. Though to come back to the original point, I consider we do have a right to push bicycles on footpaths (or at least to carry them - I'm sure there is case law that when you pick up a bicycle it becomes a parcel), so the situation there is a very similar one of users disagreeing with landowners and unclear law.

Anyway, the issue we do have as cyclists is that we do have a lot less rights than walkers and horseriders - that's something fundamental about the system where those groups have paths belonging to them whilst we're just there on sufferance. The CTC do actually do rather more than many on here think in terms of lobbying etc., but you only have to read a bit of hansard to realise the ignorance they're up against. I read quite a bit of the latest debate where they were doing ROW stuff (CROW?), and the minister dismisses the idea of removing the "racing on bridleways" law on the grounds that it's not unreasonable for other users not to have bikes racing past them, totally ignoring the fact that we can (and do) race on FPs (the MTBOs on Cannock Chase allow you to ride on FPs, but BWs are OOB because of this ridiculous law), whilst you can (and they do) race motor bikes and cars on BWs.

The question being, given the basis of the law, what exactly do you expect a regional rep to do about us not being allowed to ride on FPs and clarify the issue about pushing bikes on them? The only people they can lobby who would make any difference are the ones in Westminster who've proved not only that they have no interest in doing so, but that they have so little interest at all in us that they can't even be bothered to do proper research when such issues are introduced. Or am I missing some function relating to keeping BWs clear (which isn't what this debate is all about)? I can't even see much point in lobbying for upgrading of paths in most places, as we have no rights in this regard - if the horseriders aren't interested it's not going to happen (there are a few exceptions such as in mid Wales where Colin and Jerry have successfully got stuff reclassified, but these were routes that were very wrongly classified).

suck their thumbs on a forum cajoling each other into acts of disobediance rather than tackling the problems.

in my experience this is enough as the notional lack of right is just that, an idea, with no physical manifestaion or enforcement

Latest from local RoW officer.

Extract from most recent communication:

"I appreciate you and a number of other cyclists are disappointed by the decision of the Council in this matter. I am though going to ask my colleagues in our Legal Section to consider the entire issue of 'natural accompaniment' in the hope that we can offer some clear guidance on this matter. However as you will appreciate by the comments on the Single Track World Forum this matter is not just a local issue and may take some time to fully resolve".

I'm actually fairly heartened by the response I've had from the Council.

@ SFB - plenty of physical manifestation in my experience!

For the record I cannot recommend that anyone goes near this location with their bike.

Maybe ask him why the route has not been considered for upgrade in the ROWIP, and whether he'll consider adding it to the list for future review?

'natural accompaniment'

Are they worried about 4x4 or MX riders suddenly leaning against their vehicles when caught and saying 'mate I was only pushing it'?

Seriously confused.

haven't read all this but makes note never to live in england, it's all a bit pathetic 🙄

I rode past the gate that Pennine posted a picture of on the first page of this thread, and any signs that had been there have been removed.

[url= http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/wheeling-your-bike-on-a-footpath ]http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/wheeling-your-bike-on-a-footpath[/url]