Haveing a discussion/argument with a friend. I’ve pointed out several times that riding on a public footpath isn’t illegal as it’s a civil matter

Access All Areas: A Policeman’s View

he argues that

If illegal means “against the law” then riding a bicycle on a footpath is still illegal, as civil law is still a law. You simply are not prosecuted by the Crown, you are prosecuted by another legal entity, ie a person, a company, a public body, etc. The Crown does not takes sides, ie is not adversarial, it is simply the arbitrator of the dispute.

?

It isn’t against the law, unless a specific bye-law has been passed. Although footpaths, bridleways and restricted byways exclude motor vehicles for instance (and footpaths exclude cycles, more pertinently), this is without prejudice to any higher public rights that may exist – either private rights such as access to property, or historic rights that may reflect the nature of a track misrecorded as a footpath for instance when the “definitive map” was drawn up

I think your friend is right, it’s not a criminal activity, but it is illegal as in “Contrary to or forbidden by law”

I think it’s that every reference online relates to it not being illegal. I suppose this is in relation to criminal law. Civil law deals with disputes

To be illegally riding a footpath (a countryside one not an urban one) you would need to commit trespass dealt with through a civil law route. The police won’t be interested (very few exceptions as nbt says) so the landowner would have to sue you for trespass.

So I would say you are correct. Cycling on a footpath is not illegal. We just have no “right” to cycle there. Trespass is illegal. Cycling on a footpath does not necessarily equal trespass.

That is how I understand it. I also asked similar questions recently

It is illegal but not a crime. Morally it’s not a free for all either. You have to strike a balance between what you want and the security and enjoyment of others and the environment.

Buzz- Trespass is illegal, not cycling on a footpath. Is that not correct?

Cycling on a footpath is trespass though, you have no legal right to be there.

I would be very interested for a breakdown of why cycling on a footpath is automatically trespass. As far as I understand it is not but I may very well be mistaken 🙂

Make a distinction between public footpath (illegal trespass on a bike without land owner permission) and a footpath next to a road (illegal and a crime)

No, as I said above, the right may exist but has not been proved. The right to use the path on foot has been proved, but this does not necessarily preclude any higher rights such as for horses / bikes / cars

Buzz- countryside footpaths. Urban footpaths carry a fine and can be given by a uniformed officer of the law. As nbt says, “no right to be there” is not the same as “illegal to be there”.

Yes.. sorry we were talking about countryside footpaths

Cycling on a footpath is trespass though

I am not a lawyer… The main thing about trespass is interference, there has to be direct and physical. If there is a footpath ( a means for the public to cross the land) just because your on a bike doesn’t automatically infer interference.

Was how I understood it

That’s an interesting subtlety nickc.

As I understand it Buzz, trespass is a tort, ie there is no criminal intent, just recompense for your loss, if your telly blows up and scorches your wall, you’re going to ask for that to be repaired and as well as the telly replacing, although there was no intent for the telly to explode and damage your wall ( you’ve still been wronged)

Trespass is the same, by coming into my land you damaged it in a way that I want recompense from you ( is how the law goes) the fact that you’re on a bike is largely irrelevant.

I am not a lawyer….

I think it’s getting into a very specific area (and slightly off-topic), but my understanding is that as mentioned you may be able to prove higher rights for a particular section of footpath, but until those rights are proved then it remains a footpath and technically you do not have any rights of way and are trespassing. If those rights have been proven, then it’s no longer a footpath, so you have every right to be there.

From wiki – for laziness;
“”Interference” covers any physical entry to land, as well as the abuse of a right of entry”

“It is not necessary to prove that harm was suffered to bring a claim”

The wording of your initial post is kinda getting in the way of the argument I think:
“riding on a public footpath isn’t illegal as it’s a civil matter”

1. “riding on a public footpath isn’t illegal” = correct
2. “…as it’s a civil matter” = this is where it goes off target a bit.
As they ^^^ said, the landowner’s ability to persue you for the cost of making good any damage you have done, is the “civil matter”. Not the “riding on a footpath” per se. He only has that ability because, unlike a walker, you have no entitlement in law to be there on a bike.

Also not a legal-beagle, just a militant cheeky trail poacher.

Ah right, so just by being there you are trespassing? My understanding incorrect then.

But still landowner has to get your details and Pursue damages, right?

almost… more like, just by being there without that right being protected by the law, you are trespassing.
That’s my understanding anyway.

But still landowner has to get your details and Pursue damages, right?

Right 😉

OP, I can see where your mate is coming from; you break criminal law by doing something illegal, and you also break common law with going something illegal. However one must distinguish between the two forks of UK ‘justice’ – namely criminal law (i.e. defined in statute, carrying fixed punishments) and common law offences (i.e. historical crimes that haven’t yet got round to becoming statute – so the more weird and wonderful crimes are still common law, but you can still be fined / imprisoned). I suppose in a few hundred years there will be no common laws.

So yes, cycling on Public Footpaths is in a sense ‘illegal’ but only under common law not criminal law, but its generally accepted that you only do something illegal if you break criminal law only because there are few common laws around to break

As for why cycling on footpaths is trespass? The simple answer is – because it just is; in a piece of circular (il)logic, because it’s not criminal law you can’t go to court to dispute it or redefine the statute. If it was criminal law it would be exceptionally difficult to prove damages / etc, so chances are it would NOT become criminal law and dropped.

Crazy 🙂

[edit]

You can see the difficulties above in trying to define ‘trespass’ and all the why’s and wherefores, but it just shows it’s in a sense an exercise in futility because unless it’s a criminal matter, it just is.

nbt +1

Many paths were labeled as footpaths in the 1950’s though were frequently designated as footpath without reflecting the long historical use for horses, carts etc. which would have giving cyclist a right to use (on the bike; pushing it and you are a pedestrian).

If we want open access to all PRoWs for bikes in England (as in Scotland ) though we do need to balance needs & rights of other users and the environment.

And if you post your “cheeky trails” to endomundo etc the landowner can find you easily and prosecute because you’ve supplied them with the evidence they require! Time/date and the track you followed/made.

mrelectric- pushing a bike on a footpath is not different legally speaking to riding a bike on a footpath. Pushing a bike (or even carrying it above your head!) does not make you a pedestrian- you are a “foot passenger of a vehicle” or something equally daft sounding (someone refers to this in the previous thread I linked to earlier in this thread).

a footpath next to a road (illegal and a crime

I thought you could cycle oin the footpath if you deemed it to be safer than using the road [ unless a bye way prevents this]
IIRC there was a thread on stw on this – anyone know if it is ALWAYS illegal to ride on a path [ with a road at the side of it?]
many Cycle paths are basically taking you on to the path for a short section does it stop being a path for this period?
Sorry bit OT but does anyone know?

dibboid – Member
And if you post your “cheeky trails” to endomundo etc the landowner can find you easily and prosecute because you’ve supplied them with the evidence they require! Time/date and the track you followed/made.

What are they going to prosecute you for?

mrelectric- pushing a bike on a footpath is not different legally speaking to riding a bike on a footpath. Pushing a bike (or even carrying it above your head!) does not make you a pedestrian- you are a “foot passenger of a vehicle” or something equally daft sounding (someone refers to this in the previous thread I linked to earlier in this thread).

Just not true. How many people have ever been charged/prosecuted for pushing their bicycle along a pavement or footpath?

OP, I can see where your mate is coming from; you break criminal law by doing something illegal, and you also break common law with doing something illegal.

I was trying to highlight that everything i’ve read online (including the bit on this site written by a policeman states it’s not illegal. I think they are always referring to criminal law.

zangolin- I was stating the technicalities of rights of way- I was certainly not suggesting it was logical or if there had been previous prosecutions!!! The same civil law applies to carrying a bike on a footpath as riding it. You would hope common sense prevails in all of the circumstances discussed here but common sense is not the law 😀

including the bit on this site written by a policeman

It’s quite lovely how much faith people put in the all encompassing legal expertise of police officers. Lovely and, sadly, misguided.

Cycling on footpaths is illegal in this country by definition…..
It is fun therefor it is illegal.

Fortunately it is also unenforceable as the fun police rarely venture onto footpaths for fear of unintentionally experiencing fun.

nickc – Member

As I understand it Buzz, trespass is a tort, ie there is no criminal intent, just recompense for your loss, if your telly blows up and scorches your wall, you’re going to ask for that to be repaired and as well as the telly replacing, although there was no intent for the telly to explode and damage your wall ( you’ve still been wronged)

Trespass is the same, by coming into my land you damaged it in a way that I want recompense from you ( is how the law goes) the fact that you’re on a bike is largely irrelevant.

There is no damage element to the offence of trespass.
If there is damage then the offence is aggravated trespass, which is a criminal matter.

Exactly trickydisco, in terms of criminal law its not illegal but under common law it is – purely wordplay though because, AIUI, there is no specific word for when someone breaches / contravenes / whatever common law other than “illegal”. Perhaps at one time there was though when there were more of them.

As I said earlier, its generally accepted when someone acts illegally they have broken a criminal law, only because there are so few common laws to break.

– anyone know if it is ALWAYS illegal to ride on a path [ with a road at the side of it?]

If we’re talking pavements here, as a rule of thumb yes unless there are signs saying you can. If it’s a cyclepath it will (should) be signed anyway.

As to whether its illegal (in the criminal sense!) to push your bike on a Public Footpath the jury is still out I’m afraid. I suspect not, otherwise someone somewhere would have by now been prosecuted. I’m sure there’s a thread over on CTC where they go over it in more detail and still haven’t figured it out 🙂

See my article for more general info.

The terms you need to know are ‘illegal’ and ‘unlawful’. Riding on a footpath is unlawful, but not illegal. Illegal means forbidden by law, but unlawful is something which you do not have a right in law to do.

As a cyclist, you have a right to follow a Bridleway, and nobody can stop you. Not even the land owner. On a footpath, however, you have no such right, and if the landowner (or his agent) asks you to leave, then you should do so. This could be by means of a sign. Nobody else has any power to stop you, it’s a matter between you and the land owner. Access is unlawful, because you cannot use the law to enforce a right of access.

In theory, trespass is a civil tort, but if a landowner was to sue they can only claim damages… And it’s hard to see how any quantifiable costs could be attributed to a simple trespass – so what’s the landowner going to sue for? 😉

What is definitely criminal was the misclassification of 1000’s of bridleways as footpaths, by lazy legislators.

I reckon PhilO is about right, having been a property lawyer in a previous life.

In the same way, a walker (not on Access land) who strays off a designated right of way is also acting “illegally” (or however you want to define it). If you and a rambler are both travelling off of a recognised RoW, then you are equally in the wrong (however wrong you consider that to be is a personal matter of course :wink:)

It’s not all about the bike…

There is no damage element to the offence of trespass.
If there is damage then the offence is aggravated trespass, which is a criminal matter.

Doesn’t aggravated trespass require an intent to damage/disrupt? If damage/disruption is caused unintentionally then it can still be trespass?

I guess the point is that as there is no punishment for trespass, then unless you cause damage, and are sued to recover those damages, then from a practical point of view, trespass doesn’t really exist as a punishable offence without damage.

Doesn’t aggravated trespass require an intent to damage/disrupt? If damage/disruption is caused unintentionally then it can still be trespass?

Aggravated trespass is something slightly different, it’s basically trespass but with the addition that you are trying to stop other people doing something which they have a right to do. Hunt saboteurs attempting to disrupt a pheasant shoot on private land can be charged with aggravated trespass for example.

I guess the point is that as there is no punishment for trespass, then unless you cause damage, and are sued to recover those damages, then from a practical point of view, trespass doesn’t really exist as a punishable offence without damage.

If you willfully damage anything during the trespass then you could be charged with criminal damage. In theory a landowner could attempt to sue you for cycling along a footpath even though you don’t perceive any damage – the very act of being there is having an effect on the surroundings, crushing his grass for example, I would suspect (and hope) that he would be laughed out of court though.

Edit: a more likely course of action if you were a habitual trespasser would be that the landowner could apply for an injunction against you, if you disobeyed that then you could be found in contempt of court and in a whole world of trouble, I’ve never seen a footpath that’s that good!.

What is definitely criminal was the misclassification of 1000’s of bridleways as footpaths, by lazy legislators

Kind of agree but then again I wouldn’t want horses churning up singletrack throughout the winter as they do around here to all trails they have access to. Some kind of joint walker/ cyclist access to footpath would be ideal but I don’t see that ever happening…