Looking forward to you actually joining in the debate Simon rather than pursuing your usual strategy of trying to get an attention seekers response

in this case I think everything has already been said many times before. The (case) law is an ass, but it doesn't matter because there's no way anyone is going to be able to find the money to enforce it this century. So ride where you like and if someone pulls a face at you (the usual limit of response) then just smile back at them sweetly and carry on.

I was interested in the idea that full suss encourages FP usage due to effectively smoothing out the bridleways, but in practice the classifications are so arbitrary that one couldn't really tell which was which in most places excpet by looking at the map.

Perhaps you can comment about "sensitivity" in Calderdale Mark ? I was once warned off annoying the farmer on London Road by Chipps but of course I took no notice, and it's since been pointed out the rock garden and Stoodley Pike are a common and he's only a tennant

I've only ever been warned twice from what I recall for riding a footpath, one is near where Geda mentioned but the guy concerned is no longer there. And another is a bridleway a few miles from here on the coast that the farmer seems sensitive about even though it's no on his land any more.

No good posting a pic of a BW with some pebbles on it.

have you ever ridden it? The wonderful rocky DH to Seathwaite in Dunnerdale, a classic!

And ironically someone walking it with a bike.

not all of us have bike god status 🙂

I would have posted a shot of the DH from Burnmoor Tarn to Wasdale Head too, but none of the shots I have get close to showing its scary rocky goodness 🙁

I don't know why Mark characterised that as attention seeking. I just sought to point out that there are plenty of exciting bridleways, particularly in The Lakes. We ride the footpaths not for want of anything better but to link up more stuff, and these days, in my head at least the nominal classification is no longer a consideration

cheeky trails = riding footpaths nothing more.

the law was designed to prevent landowners blocking established access rather than provide leisure for the masses
CROW should be revisited and extended from foot only to include non motorised bikes, horses and donkey rides – this doesn't extend to riding in peoples gardens and rules out agricultural land – this may p' off some landowners that fought hard to prevent CROW access and will claim it will be the thin end of the wedge – also removes the costly legal system LA's use to manage bridleways and concerns about maintenance plus would force the hand of National Parks and The National Trust who have nice written policies about cycling but no action on the ground

if this meant having a tag on my bike and compulsary third part insurance i would go with it – also a lot of people on bikes do need to improve attitude to walkers big time

and sorry haven't read article yet as not been to shop to get mag

and compulsary third part insurance

isn't this a bit of a red herring ? How does the 3rd party injury toll caused by bikes compare to that of road vehicles ? 0.1% ?

In 14 years of biking I've hit one walker when we both dived into the same ditch. He was walking in the middle of the road when I came round a blind bend. No one was hurt. Oh, I also once splashed a girl's white jeans with mud.

Why do Calderdale / Todmordern types always think there riding is the best / cheekiest this side of all English / Welsh borders?

Is it just cuz thats where the mag is based and so the little northern industrial slaggy landscapes are forced onto everyone who buys the mag?

OOh, you rode a footpath. Get over yourself.

OK, so what are THE footpaths we should all ride then? I've always fancied the path along the top of the Roaches

"He never begrudged having a ROW across his land and in fact his young daughter – my now wife – used to sell drinks and home made cakes to passing walkers. However, he did expect people to observe the ROWs"

A very positive attitude [claps with delight]. But did he object to the odd cyclist using the FPs?

Why do Calderdale / Todmordern types always think there riding is the best / cheekiest this side of all English / Welsh borders?

in this case I think it may be true 🙂

Is it just cuz thats where the mag is based and so the little northern industrial slaggy landscapes are forced onto everyone who buys the mag?

FYI Calderdale is too steep for slag heaps, and at least when the sun shines can be quite idyllic. Just hope it doesn't rain or the gritstone will eat your bike …

Scruff you've missed the point entirely.

But did he object to the odd cyclist using the FPs?

I must ask him. My guess is that few mountain bikers would have wanted to cross the field – it doesn't really link anything worth riding. He knows how much I love biking so I guess if he was still there he'd be fairly open-minded about it. Again I refer to sensitivity. 1 or 2 polite riders is one thing. A big gang of riders being "cheeky" is very different

The law is daft, but its eaiser to ignor it and ride sensitivly. I think any attempt to change it may take ages, cost money and possibly backfire.

So personally I shall continue to ride footpaths with a polite and sensitive attitude.

Leaving it as it is also means there is an little bit of added zest to riding cheeky. I like that sort of zest.

OK, so what are THE footpaths we should all ride then? I've always fancied the path along the top of the Roaches

It's good.

This is what I wrote back to Dave:

For me, trail use boils down to two separate but usually muddled issues: access rights and impact. I don't give a stuff about access rights, they are historic nonsense. But I care a lot about impact: noise, distraction, erosion, damage and risk to other users. The impact guides my choice of trails.

I get the sense that "ramblers", as opposed to the majority of normal walkers, hate us. We disrupt their large groups and are visibly having more fun. Ramblers fought the law and won; they think that cyclists are just jumping on the bandwagon. But I see more people biking than hiking and horse riding combined these days. Is it time to flex our muscles, to get the law to acknowledge that a bike is not a horse? Perhaps. But the politics are missing. "The Ramblers" are a serious lobbying group, whereas cycling groups are just not.

I think I'll politely, morally and sensitively continue breaking the law.

I don't even know what it is I ride!? if it's a path/trail/track of some description and looks interesting, then I'll ride it… if there's a walker or other user on there, I give way to them and say hello and smile, seems to work for me? But then I'm Aussie and don't know the 'rules' or 'laws' of this foreign country! 😆 Am I a bad man?

When I used to razz around the woods on a bike when I was eight, the notion of what a BW bridleway, or footpath was pretty much anathema to me, I went largely where I wanted, having said that a big **** off sign saying No Access was enough to put me off. As an aside, coming across other bicycle tracks was a rare thing those days.

Nowadays things are different, I still ride largely where I want, but I'm careful to do it only at certain times of the day, and on certain days of the week, not because I'm worried about breaking the law, it's about give and take, I'm luckily in the position where I can choose the time of my riding to not coincide with the walkers who perhaps have a limited time to enjoy the countryside, and wouldn't appreciate me coming at them at 20mph plus.

we live on a small island, there's lots of us, we need to have empathy with others' POV.

I think I'll politely, morally and sensitively continue breaking the law.

I'm not sure what law you think you're breaking.

I think I'll politely, morally and sensitively choose where to ride. That will include bridleways, footpaths and trails on the ground not marked by OS or definitive map.

"footpaths and trails on the ground not marked by … definitive map"

For this we have no access rights and risk charges of trespass. This is the law-breaking I'm referring too.

http://www.trespasslaw.co.uk/common_misconceptions.html

Sod cheeky trails. I wish cities in the UK were like the town I live in in Sweden Lund where the bike is seen as one of the most important modes of transport and the cycle routes are so good that my 4 year old can cycle own his own bike to nursery (2 miles). Most of the pavements are dual use and they spend a lot of money on bike facilities.

Riding about on muddy footpaths is a bit further down the line in my opinion.

Higgo that's a good link and worth everyone reading. But it does not refute that the charge of trespass exists.

As I understand it, one cannot be 'charged with' trespass, one is 'sued for' damages arising from trespass.

So what do we think is the best way of moving this issue forward then?

Campaigning to get cyclists allowed on prow footpaths?

From what i have read it seems to be nigh on impossible to get a fp changed to a bridleway.

I dont think we "risk" much when we risk trespass. The landowner would need to get our name and address and press charges for damage to the land.

As long as the trespasser is not posing an immediate threat, they cannot be removed by force. It is usually illegal to arrest a trespasser and hold them on the property until law enforcement arrives as this defeats the purpose of allowing them to cure the trespass by leaving.

Common Misconceptions:

(Taken from http://www.trespasslaw.co.uk/common_misconceptions.html)

Trespassers Will Be Prosecuted:

It is quite a common misconception that a land owner can or can have a trespasser prosecuted. Trespassers cannot be prosecuted, Trespass is a civil not criminal matter. Signs that read, “Private property – Trespassers will be prosecuted” are bluff and nothing else.

Trespassers can be forcibly ejected:

We have all heard the story of the old man carting children off his lawn by holding onto their ear! Although this may have been common practice some years ago, unfortunately this is no longer the case. While you are allowed to use reasonable force to eject a trespasser, the definitions for reasonable force are far from clear.

If as a land owner you do forcibly eject an individual or an individuals possessions or both you are leaving yourself liable for criminal proceedings for undue force and damage.

I’m Entitled To Compensation:

This is true; you are also entitled to compensation for the damage caused by chewing gum on the sole of your shoe. Seeking compensation for random trespass is in practice not worth the time. Try to calculate the actual loss incurred by a landowner; some grass seed, maybe the water to make said grass seed grow, raking of any gravel pathways that have been disturbed – as you can see, this will not total very much.

The Police will eject a trespasser for me:

Calling the police as a landowner is pointless. The police will occasionally attend trespass matters, however this is usually to ensure that the landowner only exercises reasonable force in the ejection of the trespasser and is therefore for the trespassers benefit, not the land owners.

There are a number of reasons for this:

•As mentioned, it is a civil matter and is not a police officers duty
•In removing the trespasser they may injure them leading to a claim by the trespasser
•The trespasser may complain as the police have acted inappropriately (asserting state authority in a civil matter)

Repeated or Ongoing Trespass

If this is an ongoing, repeated or nuisance trespass, there are things that can be done, however please remember these are Civil proceedings, not criminal (YOU Vs. John Jackson not The People or The Crown vs. John Jackson) please see the menu to the left.

I dont see that happening in the real world. Carry on Cheeky, with a sensitive approach.

one is 'sued for' damages arising from trespass.

Indeed, you have no right of passage by bicycle on a right of way designated as a footpath. You can be asked to leave, you may be liable for any damage you've caused, but that is usually negligable and not worth attempting to recover.

So don't needlessly damage property, don't ride through a SSSI, and don't run school groups down. Simples.

"'sued for' damages arising from trespass"

OK I accept that correction.

Oh and if you want to email Dave with suggestions, opinions or just a good old 'Go on my Son!'

Dave at Singletrackworld

is his email.

SFB: I was once warned off annoying the farmer on London Road by Chipps but of course I took no notice, and it's since been pointed out the rock garden and Stoodley Pike are a common and he's only a tennant

However, that farmer owns the land either side of the hill (and the land (and therefore the permission) that the permissive bridleway runs down on (the Penny Steps)) – and he has the right to object to the creation of the bridleway that the Calderdale ROW people are trying to get created from Cragg Vale over to the top of the penny steps.

What GEDA said.

GEDA's comment is very good but that would involve a full infrastructure change in many cities therefore costing millions. Letting people ride a muddy path would cost way less and be of interest to most on here.

What is going to happen is that someone rides very fast into someone on a footpath, the daily mail get a hold of it and they try to ban mountain bikes on bridleways as well.

For the cycle way stuff you have to start somewhere. Like all new developments must have cycle ways and or pay for cycle facilities to get to the said area. Most suburban footpaths are not used so could be easily converted to dual use.

I think Wors is referring to Geda's earlier comment about 'respect for the land' not his comment about cycle paths in Lund.

Coincidentally, I'm also in Sweden today (Sodertalje) and do a fair bit of running while I'm here. I just head out into the woods in the edge of town and follow random paths, very much in the 'do not disturb, do not destroy' style. I've only been biking here a couple of times – borrowed a colleague's spare bike – and it's much the same. We just rode on paths and enjoyed ourselves.

The CTC has a very good document on this matter. I don't know how they are moving the debate along though or if this just sits on their website.

http://www.ctc.org.uk/resources/Campaigns/0604_DMox_NCAF_Future_of_Cycling_final.doc

As stated previously in this thread it's about taking care. The big problem with open access of bike to all footpaths would be on paths like the South west coastal path which is place is very narrow and steep, hence good MTBing but would be dangerous for walkers if cycling was openly allowed. This is where I think the CTCs idea has some good ideas with a graded system.

Using the current system all footpaths should be considered bridleways (as if you had a horse you would ride along a path if you had one in ye olden times) and the exception be footpaths rather than the other way around as it currently is.

The big problem is that law always has to work to the lowest common denominator, and while many will be reasonable the will always be the idiots say bombing along a narrow section of the SWCP as in my example during the height of summer.

However, that farmer owns the land either side of the hill (and the land (and therefore the permission) that the permissive bridleway runs down on (the Penny Steps))

indeed? But as I've pointed out before, any strategy (appeasement?) that relies on solidarity between all mountain bikers is doomed to fail because we're too heterogenous. And it smacks too much of "jam tomorrow" 🙁 Some of us may not live that long…

A lot of this discussion focuses on "footpaths". This can mean different things to different people (i.e. the RoW definition of a FP, or paths that aren't ones where biking is permited/tolerated etc). Personally, I'd like a right of access to all suitable tracks / paths / footpaths / trails / roads etc.

I'm not advocating a right to roam over any surface, wherever it might be.

However, I generally agree with some folks comments here that the likelihood of meaningful change is very low for all sorts of reasons. Not apathy or defeatism, just realism in trying times.

I struggle with the whole 'cheeky trail' thing…why..because i see the damage being done to bridleways in the Dark Peak area by motox riders and green laners and so if I use a 'cheeky trail' I see myself as no better than them and I'd like to think I am a little more considerate

You know where this debate may get interesting?
Over on the Ramblers Forum…

http://www.ramblers.co.uk/forum/

OK, it's generally very quiet but a debate like this might bring all sorts of people out of the woodwork!
I have to say actually, most people on here have been very sensible – the usual common sense approach of softly softly, a bit of discretion about what paths are used when and by how many and there's no (or very little!) conflict. 🙂

It's pretty much the approach that I take when I ride – I've got no problems using footpaths when the opportunity presents itself.

No spoiler in the thread title? I haven't read it yet!

But I'd like access all areas but with a code of conduct for all users be they bike, horse or foot

"so if I use a 'cheeky trail' I see myself as no better than them"

Not at all. Avoid muddling legality with impact. Your erosion and noise impact is similar to a pedestrian; theirs is not.

We had this situation on the Mendip recently: there's been some moaning about all the additional MTBers eroding the singletrack over the years – fair enough. But this was put in perspective when 4x4ers invaded once last November causing orders of magnitude more surface damage.

Go ride them without guilt.