Implications for cyclists???

http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/display.var.2503550.0.couple_win_fight_to_keep_riders_off_land.php

that is an interesting case and one I have been following. We need more details of the judgement but IIRC it is not as straightforward as it seems.

From memory – When they bought the land there were no paths at all. They provided paths they created for walkers in a public spirited manner. When the access rights came in local horse riders started using them when they had not before and wrecked the paths as the paths were only built for walkers.

I guess they went for exemption on grounds that it was a path built and maintained for a specific purpose which is allowed in the act. The horses wrecking them could also be seen as not “responsible”

Here is the full judgement – in legalese

appears even more complex than I remembered. The decision to refuse horse riders access was on grounds that the damage they would cause would mean it is not reasonable access

There is another alternative path for horse riders which there is no dispute over and a path for MTBs

Is this the ‘Learnie’ trails that are in question? I’d heard of an action on the Black Isle, but wasn’t sure where exactly.

I’m also disappointed that even the courts can’t get their word usage correct as the judgement uses the word ‘adverse’ when they mean ‘averse’. Grrrr!

that the pursuers are not adverse in any general way to public access to their land

Jojo – http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/adverse

Does this mean all you Scottish people are going to stop being so smug now? 😉

Does this mean all you Scottish people are going to stop being so smug now?

unlikely 😉

Thank you Mr Agreeable, I’ve never seen the word used in that sense.

Me neither. Happy adversary!

Mr Agreeable –
…Does this mean all you Scottish people are going to stop being so smug now?

Just the horse riders 🙂

It seems a fair decision, but we should probably jump in on their side because I can see the same trick being used on knobbly tyres, especially when it rains (all the time here).

The law simply codified something that has always existed in Scotland, so I don’t think there’s much danger of us being reduced to subservient English status. 😉 😀

The law simply codified something that has always existed in Scotland

Sorry to be a pedant but I don’t think that’s correct.

Having read the full judgement I think its a reasonable decision. There exists two other routes parallel for the horse from what I read – the access track to the farm and a purpose built horse path.

The landowners built the various paths in the last few years to allow access. Horse ridrs wanted to use the walkers path and were ripping it up.

the horse riders could not argue that the were being prevented from going where they wanted as two alternative paths parallel were available.

So while it sets precedent its over a very rare and narrow type of issue

cynic-al – Member

> The law simply codified something that has always existed in Scotland

Sorry to be a pedant but I don’t think that’s correct.

The statement is correct. If you’d sat through the debating sessions during passage of the Bill, you’d have heard this very point being discussed (yes I am a sad b&st*rd)

“Horse ridrs wanted to use the walkers path and were ripping it up.”

I’m imagining horses doing wall rides & 360’s off gnarly drops….

OMG!!!!!
The second i posted that response, a horse & trap just flew past my house & got air off the speed-bump on the street.
No joking!!!!

druidh – Member
cynic-al – Member
> The law simply codified something that has always existed in Scotland

Sorry to be a pedant but I don’t think that’s correct.

The statement is correct. If you’d sat through the debating sessions during passage of the Bill, you’d have heard this very point being discussed (yes I am a sad b&st*rd)
I was living in Oz when the legislation came in so I missed that.

We used to rely on a belief in those rights 30 odd years ago when we used to roam all over. We believed the right existed and so did most of the landowners we met. Those who disputed it with us usually did so with fruity southern accents.

Just as well it’s law in that case! 😀

My understanding is:

Any extrapolation on erosion would only be valid for equine access – and would probably need expert witness input on the particular path design and construction etc. So in terms of MTB access there is no direct impact.

The appeal overturned the Sheriffs original decision as it appeared that he had relied on an interpretation of the expert witness report which may have been invalid – specifically that erosion would only be problematic if relatively high use of the path was made by horses, when even limited horses using the path would have a cumulative effect especially if used in periods of poor weather. Such access would not be considered responsible. Extrapolation to MTB access would require a case-by-case investigation to consider how MTBs would impact on erosion on that particular path – and whether that would happen with light usage in good weather also. I think most people would not want MTBs to cause excessive erosion and so would recognize that doing so is not responsible access.

Digging through the legalese I think the appeal also decided that it is not illegal to put physical barriers in place with main purpose to prevent or discourage irresponsible access even if that may have a consequential impact on people who wish to make responsible access. That potentially has more impact on MTBs as putting fences and signs up to restrict access may be legal if the main purpose is to prevent irresponsible access?

What is not clear to me from this case was if I had one horse and took it up there once a year on a dry day when my erosion was minimised would I be breaking the law if I used the path (my hypothetical horse is very good at jumping gates)? If I followed the logic correctly – there was no argument that a single horse on a single occasion in good conditions would cause damage and therefore be irresponsible access – so presumably responsible access, even by horse, is still a right?

I am quite impressed that Highland Council sought to take this test case as far as this. Do they have any right of appeal, or is this case now finalised?

Whilst it may seem fair that the landowner had made alternative provision to cross his land by other paths, to my mind the Act is not about a right to transit land it is about a right to roam. If provision of an alternate route were of itself sufficient defense – that would be very bad for cycle (especially MTB) access – use the road rather than the nice single track.