Someone tried it on today - was taking a group ride round some trails in the Wear Valley when a woman came out of the old farmhouse where our bridleway emerged saying "this isn't a cyclepath". I pointed out it's an ancient bridleway. "Not any more. It's been changed. The council wrote to tell us not to allow cyclists and horses on here any more." I asked her where the public notices were, and why the signs and waymarkers all still said BW but she went back indoors. Anyway, one of the joys of the web is being able to check the definitive map without going to County Hall and it still shows it as a BW so I've emailed the RoW team and asked them to put her straight.
Normally I just ignore this kind of stuff but we had 2 new members on the club ride and it doesn't make a good impression.
Bike Forum
Get orff moi broidlewaaaay
-
Posted 3 months ago #
-
Normally I just ignore this kind of stuff but we had 2 new members on the club ride and it doesn't make a good impression
you are right, telling a landowner what's what about their land does not make a good impression.
Not saying she was right or wrong, you should have bit your tongue and ignored as it's not worth argueing overPosted 3 months ago # -
highclimber
errr... yes it is.
They may be the landowner, but if it's a bridleway, thats tough. She knew she was wrong and got caught fibbing.
Posted 3 months ago # -
*disagrees with highclimber*
When a (probably not landowning) local misunderstands access rules and challenges you inappropriately I'd sugesst that it's important to correct them before they become annoyed and potentially aggressive with future users
Posted 3 months ago # -
I think its better to avoid confilct with someone who lives there by being passive. Besides that, if he's leading a group that has paid him, he has no 'right' to ride the path anyway.
Posted 3 months ago # -
He said Club Ride,so not being paid.Every right to be there.
Posted 3 months ago # -
I think its better to avoid confilct with someone who lives there by being passive
If you take shit you'll be given shit.
Posted 3 months ago # -
*glasps hands and thanks the lord that I live in scotchland*
Posted 3 months ago # -
If you take shit you'll be given shit.
much better to let them be wrong and inform the RoW officer of the incident as this will have a much better effect than arguing mid ridePosted 3 months ago # -
^ I'm not advocating a full-on barney just for the hell of it
I prefer to make it obvious to people who are apt to give grief for no reason that it's not welcome. It usually works quite well and they either f off or change tack and we end up having a nice chat.
Posted 3 months ago # -
Why would a paid-for guided ride not be allowed on a BW?
Posted 3 months ago # -
No matter how right you may be, there will always be someone on STW to tell you you're wrong.
I'm always surprised at how anti-cycling some folk on here are
Posted 3 months ago # -
Besides that, if he's leading a group that has paid him, he has no 'right' to ride the path anyway.
I'm, shall we say, fairly well versed in PROW law, and I've never seen any allusion to that... More than enough discussion over commercial use of BW network by pony trekking companies, and they still have an unchallenged right to use the network.
In fact, the concept of a restriction on the right of use preventing commercial use would be anathema to the concept of a bridleway, since its history is not recreational, but very much from commercial use (pack horse trails etc.)
I suppose taxi drivers and coach tours aren't allowed to use the road network now either
Posted 3 months ago # -
Did exactly the right thing. Let the RoW dept deal with it. Keep riding it though (as long at the RoW team say you are right) and be quiet, calm etc when you do.
We have BWs and FPs on our land. We like cyclists!
C
Posted 3 months ago # -
much better to let them be wrong and inform the RoW officer of the incident as this will have a much better effect than arguing mid ride
...which is pretty much what we did. I asked her to clarify the situation, told her I'd heard of no such changes (and I'm on the LAF)and she went back to the house.
I also asked the RoW officer in my email whether they would ever write to a landowner telling them to tell cyclists not to use a RoW if it was downgraded from BW footpath. Whether or not cyclists are allowed on a FP is entirely at the landowner's discretion, surely? AND I wonder how many landowners are aware of this?Posted 3 months ago # -
Sadly there are those who try it on regardless. I believe it is an offence to actively discourage others from using ROWs.
I tend to call out 'I can manage fine thanks' and carry on. Reasoned arguement has never worked so far.
Posted 3 months ago # -
For every person that works against cyclists using bridleways there are 10 cyclists who ride footpaths,
Best in my eyes just to get on with your day and ignore them, be the better person. Otherwise you both look pretty foolish.
Posted 3 months ago # -
farmer may be a tenant not the landowner
Posted 3 months ago # -
We have BWs and FPs on our land. We like cyclists
yes, shame you're a NIMBY when it comes to other trail users
Posted 3 months ago # -
Thanks Nick, luckily we don't have any routes with public motor vehicle rights on them. Like just about every other person we know around us, we don't like the noise, damage or nuisance that road-legal-scramble-bikes ro or recreational 4x4s. I would of course welcolme those same drivers on foot, bike or horseback!
C
Posted 3 months ago # -
There's nothing stopping you from leading groups of walkers / riders / whatever on a PRoW for profit, but you can't “promote or take part in a race" unless authorised.
Depending on the extent of the language / behaviour, it could be an offence under the Highways Act or if not then the Public Order Act.
Landowners / occupiers are obliged to have to know where Rights of Way cross their land; TBH I deal with this everyday and 99% of landowners know exactly what they're doing, where the paths are and what they should / shouldn't do.
Quite often even I have difficulty getting through to them, so my advise would be to politely acknowledge them but not talk directly ("ok" or "thank you") to carry on and when you get back, report the problem to your local PRoW team - the chances are they do it to everybody who use the path and they need stopping.
If on the other hand if you genuinely believe a path is a BW (even though it turns out to be a FP) then the PRoW team need to know the waymarking needs looking at and for then to talk to the landowner to explain what went wrong.
Posted 3 months ago # -
p.s.
neil the wheel
I also asked the RoW officer in my email whether they would ever write to a landowner telling them to tell cyclists not to use a RoW if it was downgraded from BW footpath. Whether or not cyclists are allowed on a FP is entirely at the landowner's discretion, surely? AND I wonder how many landowners are aware of this?
If a BW was downgraded to a FP then the landowner will have been advised of their amended legal obligations in the process of downgrading. They wouldn't be specifially told to tell cyclists they couldn't ride there anymore because the council would change the waymarking (and add notices stating the status of the path has changed), placing the obigation back onto the path user to act within the law. TBH downgrades very rarely happen though.
Bikers can lawfully ride on a FP with the landowners permission, and although as not many do, them not knowing this admittedly obscure legal tidbit therefore isn't an issue. Landowners that give permission for bikes to ride on FP's automatically satisfy the legal requirements
Posted 3 months ago # -
Not saying she was right or wrong, you should have bit your tongue and ignored
Sorry to sound rude, but frankly, that is a shameful, pathetic attitude.
People that like to shout at you saying that you shouldn't be cycling where you can need to be corrected there and then before it gets out of hand.
All that blew up after some mad old woman decided she didn't like bikes going past her house apparently.
Posted 3 months ago # -
he has no 'right' to ride the path anyway
Why on earth do you think they are called "Rights of Way"?Highclimber, I have to say that your comments are, perhaps, the most cretinous I have heard in a long time and this forum has it's fair share of cretins.
Perhaps in time those of you South of the border will also have the benefit of enlightened legislation similar to the Scottish Land Reform Act. I hope so (but I suspect you will have to get rid of DC first).
Posted 3 months ago # -
Ignore the buffoons, we're with you Neil
Posted 3 months ago # -
*glasps hands and thanks the lord that I live in scotchland*
Aye, there are never any access issues or arguments in our neck of the woods, eh?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-16657527Posted 3 months ago # -
We had a similar case in my area a few years ago where a woman who lived at the bottom of a bridleway which also had vehicular rights would scream abuse at all users. She was a horse owner herself and obviously regarded this as her own personal lane as she used to scream at other horse riders, vehicles and cyclists. Eventually she was visited by the police who told her to stop abusing law abiding citizens which wouldn't have happened if someone hadn't reported her behaviour.
Posted 3 months ago # -
Aye, there are never any access issues or arguments in our neck of the woods, eh?
IMO That ruling fails to follow the spirit of the OA code.Would have been better if the ruling had excluded both parties from the river until they found a resolution. I reckon they'd have quickly got talking to each other.
Posted 3 months ago # -
+1 for living in Scotland. I spend twice as much time cycling now that I've moved north of the border than before. I think that any land owner in the UK that claims any sort of farm subsidy should be compelled by law to allow public access to their land - with the same caveats as there are in Scotland. There must a campaign for this...where do I sign up?
Posted 3 months ago # -
id shot er wid me catapult boi
Posted 3 months ago # -
Riding a path leading to some singletrack a couple of weeks back, saw an old woman and dog approaching. I pulled over to let them past, and let the dog run up and slobber all over me. I received one of those sanctimonious smiles, "this is a footpath". I replied yes, a permissive footpath. "No, footpath means feet, not wheels. You should be on the road". I pointed out the hundreds of hoof prints surrounding us and asked if they were ok?".
In the end I told her to read the sign at the end of the path, or look it up, and then meanwhile she could stick her teeth back inside her face, the goofy ****.
Posted 3 months ago # -
The Scottish Land Reform Act is beautiful and something I think us Johnny English types should aspire to. But, I wonder if it is impossible given the sheer number of recreational users down here?
There is a certain type of person that seems incapable of thinking for themselves. They are the first to berate anyone transgressing a law (like cycling on a footpath) whilst failing to appreciate the sad irony of their ridiculous X5 in the car park and driven 3 miles to walk their dog. I wish we could all be a bit more intelligent about it.
Posted 3 months ago # -
If I know I've a right to be on a certain route, the response to someone like her almost always consists of two words. Don't waste your life arguing & trying to put them right. Waste of time. Ride on. And smile.
Posted 3 months ago # -
Remember under the Scots system you only have a qualified right of access - qualified by the need to be reasonable which means giving way to walkers and not causing excessive erosion amongst other things. There is also no duty on the landowner to maintain paths ( in most circumstances) or to use gates not styles and so on.
Posted 3 months ago # -
That's the beauty of it. It is reasonable, proportionate and requires thought on both sides. I think us humans are much better thinking than blindly following orders. That automaton thing has got us into a whole lot of trouble in the past.
Posted 3 months ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
