This article https://www.cyclinguk.org/article/campaigns-guide/cycling-on-footpath-trespass
Suggests that cycling on a footpath may not actually be trespass, and that it's never been demonstrated.
One for the access campaigners amongst you!
Interesting article. I used to be an avid not cycling on the footpath rule follower. However during the first COVID lockdown where you could only exercise locally I started exploring lots of local footpaths, rather than cycling out to the Peak District. Opened up a lot of riding and I've never had any confrontation. I've carried on doing it for local rides and as per most of life try and follow Rule 1, even though I am a massive 🔔🔚 normally.
Compared that to the canal footpath which you are allowed to cycle along where people moan at you because your bell is too loud, or moan at you because you politely ask them to move out the way and why aren't you using your bell 😂
I believe our access laws date back to the ‘60s, before mountain biking was invented, and as such are hopelessly outdated. As such, when the government gets round to reviewing and updating them to take mountain biking specifically into account I’ll think about obeying them. Until then I ride with respect and politeness to other users and have only had a few problems.
What's really interesting is the reversal of the legal argument, from whether cycling is allowed as a "natural accompaniament" to walking, to whether 9r not the cycling causes a nuisance, thus making it trespass.
It feels ridiculous that someone needs to be taken to court to figure it out....
I knew it had never been legally established.
I'm lucky and locally don't often need to use cheeky footpaths. When I do, I make damn sure I respect other users, never go faster than I can see is safe to stop in, pull over when necessary and don't get cocky on the very rare occasions I'm challenged. To be fair, how I ride on bridleways.
Cyclists on paths shared with pedestrians (and horses) are the equivalent of drivers sharing roads with cyclists. The hierarchy of vulnerable users applies, I don't want to be the cycling equivalent of an Audi driving bellend.
our access laws date back to the ‘60s, before mountain biking was invented
LOLOLOL. Nobody rode a bicycle on a path before 1960.
scotroutes
Full Member
our access laws date back to the ‘60s, before mountain biking was inventedLOLOLOL. Nobody rode a bicycle on a path before 1960.
To be fair, he didn't actually specify which century...😉
There’s a few things pertinent to this thread.
The access legislation is way out of date in England and Wales and needs a review. Some good sustainable double tracks are footpaths and some boggy quagmires are bridleways.
There’s broadly 2 types of cycling I always think - heads up and being prepared to stop or heads down and going like the clappers. The first is prob ok for any footway, the second mostly not.
I think the evolution of mountain bikes hasn’t helped our cause. When I started mountain biking 30 yrs ago it was really like going for a walk with a bike. You picked your way down steep rock gardens slowly and skillfully (sometimes) because you had no suspension and you had to. Now with your massive travel, disc braked enduro sled you can get down same rock garden at a considerable speed. This is all fine at a trail centre but it’s not a good look on a potentially shared path such as a bridle way or even footpath. For some non cyclists such as horse riders, walkers and some cyclists this isn’t that far away from someone on a scrambler hooning about. I don’t think it helps with the better access debate.
We’ve got people going for a ride with a load of tools and expecting to build gap jumps in other peoples woodlands and the like. I’m pretty sure that doesn’t help either.
Im all for more access to the countryside on my bike, and even on foot but I guess it needs to come with some responsibility if we want it to work.
I was only thinking the other day how absurd the concept is in England and Wales after a few year living north of the border now.
The other twist I always like to throw in to the bridleway/footpath chat is who it's written for. It's about the types of mode if transport a land owner both has to accept and has to provision for. That is all. It's nothing to do with what someone on foot is entitled to expect to share a right of way with. After all, you might be sharing it with tractors, or the landowners own cars, bikes, whatever they have given themselves permission to use on their own land. Those other members of the public have zero right to give you grief. They of course could inform the land owner and they could give you grief but that's different. I used to run a mountain bike club at a school and on short sessions would use a loop around the school grounds that included a section of public footpath on our own land. Occasional complaints from rambler members of the public would go to the bursar who was at pains to point out their fundamental misunderstanding of the provisions.
There’s very little the landowner can do once you’re off their land.
Nor is there particularly much they can do if you’re on it, apart from ask you to leave.
I’m lucky and locally don’t often need to use cheeky footpaths. When I do, I make damn sure I respect other users, never go faster than I can see is safe to stop in, pull over when necessary and don’t get cocky on the very rare occasions I’m challenged. To be fair, how I ride on bridleways.
+1 this. Respect and understanding that a cyclist coming at a pedestrian at anything above walking pace (3-5mph) is scary to most people. But treat people with respect, do the whole overly cheery hello nonsense, and everyone's on their way happy
The whole way various types of paths are designated is a nonsense.
The basically asked the landowner what the path was. This is why you get bridleways that turn into footpaths for no apparent reason. Its completely beyond stupid. Its sometimes quite hard decide what tracks you can and can't ride (in theory)
It's just having common courtesy isn't it, there's lots of local footpaths near me and I'll ride them for a warmup/eek out extra miles before making my way up to the woods where all the trails are.
As nice as it is to get a new PR on strava for the footpath segments its rarely empty and just requires slowing right down and letting people know your coming/passing particularly if they've got dogs, I've never had any real issues just mutual thankyous from me for letting me past and from them for me slowing down and not blasting past them causing them to jump, the issues I have had is with people wearing massive noise cancelling headphones walking in the middle of the path. I own some of these myself and if wearing them whilst walking the dog which is rare in of it's self as I like to hear the cows mooing and birds chirping, I always have the ambient noise mode turned on so I can still hear what's going on around me.
On one of my local cinder tracks Saturday just gone which sees heavy cycling and walking traffic, I rode up behind someone wearing airpods and I said on your right, nothing, I said it again and nothing, I yelled it out loud enough for the people 20m infront of him to hear me and move to the side but still from him no response, had no choice but to gently swerve around him when there was space, I was probably going 6/7mph and he completely jumped out of his skin. And I'm thinking well yeah what do you expect? Why go for a nice walk in nature just to listen to stormzy or some other similar sounding crap I could hear blasting from his airpods as I rode past and then act surprised when someone rides past you on a route very commonly used by cyclists? Utter lack of self awareness
I was thinking about this at the weekend when I was confronted by a load of "No bikes" signs and a load of footpath signs that had been ripped out of the side of the path to discourage even that use. The path used to be a railway line FFS.
Then I was stopped at a gate to open it later on and it had a sign on it listing all the funders of the AONB. I looked up and all I could see was the mess that is grouse moorland. It's a great place to ride your bike, beautiful if you ignore the industrialised nature of the land use, but it's not even remotely natural.
The two thoughts are heavily intertwined, there's huge hostility from the local land owners towards anyone using the paths, let alone bikes and you can see the history of this, just by looking at the maps and comparing it to where horses used to pull trucks.
Utter lack of self awareness
I has a similar experience with a runner, completely oblivious to her surroundings, running along the TPT headphones on, middle of the path, more and more bell ringing, until I was more or less weaving from side to side trying to make my way past her. She jumping to one side when she realised and started with the effing and jeffing I think my parting words were "Pretend you have to share the space..." I didn't wait for a reply TBH.
On paths, I just ride where I want, I'm polite, I slow up for other users and I will avoid some stuff on weekends, especially during the busier times. I've rarely had confrontations, and I have had that experience on BW as well, so I just expect some folks just don't like other folk enjoying the countryside in a different way to them. These people are best ignored.
Finally, Don't give Ramblers any money, they are not on your side.
I was confronted by a load of “No bikes” signs [ ] The path used to be a railway line FFS.
There's one that I use that used to be a pack-horse trail that some busy body has put up "no mountain bikes" all along it the trail is literally flag stones across an otherwise empty moorland
Idiots
I was confronted by a load of “No bikes” signs
Encountered one of those in the Chilterns near West Wycombe - it's a land rover track that passes a house then turns into a tarmac drive. I'd ridden it before with no bother but last time I rode it there was a gate by the house plastered in no cycling signs, and as I went through I spotted someone in the garden of the house so opted to push past it to avoid conflict. Got berated with "Thank you for pushing but I bet you didn't push the other 3K of the footpath". Sometimes you can't win.
I make damn sure I respect other users, never go faster than I can see is safe to stop in, pull over when necessary and don’t get cocky on the very rare occasions I’m challenged. To be fair, how I ride on bridleways.
Cyclists on paths shared with pedestrians (and horses) are the equivalent of drivers sharing roads with cyclists. The hierarchy of vulnerable users applies, I don’t want to be the cycling equivalent of an Audi driving bellend
This. And, of course, this:
There’s broadly 2 types of cycling I always think – heads up and being prepared to stop or heads down and going like the clappers. The first is prob ok for any footway, the second mostly not.
I think the evolution of mountain bikes hasn’t helped our cause. When I started mountain biking 30 yrs ago it was really like going for a walk with a bike. You picked your way down steep rock gardens slowly and skillfully (sometimes) because you had no suspension and you had to. Now with your massive travel, disc braked enduro sled you can get down same rock garden at a considerable speed. This is all fine at a trail centre but it’s not a good look on a potentially shared path such as a bridle way or even footpath. For some non cyclists such as horse riders, walkers and some cyclists this isn’t that far away from someone on a scrambler hooning about. I don’t think it helps with the better access debate.
We’ve got people going for a ride with a load of tools and expecting to build gap jumps in other peoples woodlands and the like. I’m pretty sure that doesn’t help either.
Im all for more access to the countryside on my bike, and even on foot but I guess it needs to come with some responsibility if we want it to work.
It's the Durham Dales AONB, specifically the Muggleswick Estate, the sign is at the Parkhead Cafe.
I was on the highest railway in England, the bit that was signed No Bikes I think would likely have been incorporated into the C2C route decades ago if it wasn't a footpath.
Rule #1 is the most important one to know.
I'm fascinated by the motivation of those who want to stop and argue with you and how little they know about what it is they're arguing about.
within 5 miles of my house I've met
1. The person who said "the council" had banned cycling on that mountain, but couldn't name the local authority.
2. The person who didn't know what a bridlepath was or that they were on one, but I was still in the wrong.
3. The person who had never heard of a towpath permit when shown one.
4. the person who was unaware that the landowner of a path was Sustrans, when threatening to report me to the landowner.
5. The person who's response to me handing them the litter they'd just dropped was "you shouldn't be riding here".
6. The person who'd never heard of NCN and looked at me like I'd made something up when I pointed out the NCN46 signage a few metres away.
7. The person who was sure I was wrong to cycle without a bell on a certain undesignated old mining track, and would not accept that neither of us particularly had an absolute right to be there, but neither was either of us doing any harm, so no problem, enjoy the sunny day.
Had a couple of "not a bridleway" idiots in Scotland. OK to be fair one of them was within 60km of the border so may have been lost. The other was on a signposted bike route.
I don't get the passion some footpaths get for keeping cyclists and/or horse riders off them. While it is pleasant enough looking to one side, turn your head to the other direction and it's literally next to a business park with a chuffing great factory or two next to it!!!
It avoids a longer route using busy roads but no, cyclists and horse riders must not use it and face prosecution for seeking a safer and more pleasant route to travel.
I’ve been told by a red trousered gammon faced man that I’m breaking the law by cycling without a bell, when I rode past him because he was blocking the whole road with his dog on an extending lead.
It would surely make it easier for landowners if this daft complication was removed.
A public footpath is a highway and hence a public place. So the public have a right of access – presumably on the basis that if there is a public right of passage the owner clearly cannot enjoy the exclusive enjoyment of the land. There is no logical basis for believing that the right of access to a footpath should be limited to access on foot. Rather the issue is whether use is reasonable.
It's an interesting one really, they're asserting that there's never been a legal challenge to someone riding a bicycle on a footpath nor a case where someone has sought legal acceptance of their right to use a bicycle on a footpath? So aside from the name "Footpath" there's not much to say that they have to be exclusively for use by people on foot.
So footpaths are just another form of "Highway" and thus until some form of updated legislation clarifies access rules and/or a case is brought to set a precedent nobody can really stop you riding along them... Right?
Rule #1 is the most important one to know.
But mostly ^^This^^.
All the people confidently telling you which rights you don't get because you are on a bicycle are largely just feeling a bit impotent and having an outburst at a representative of an outlier group (as they see it) just makes them feel a little better.
Of course you don't really want them to start pulling on that thread just in case the beautifully vague set of access "rules" we currently enjoy get changed, and not in our favour. Better to politely disagree or trundle on your way than to stop and really argue back, you might just trigger a letter writing campaign by the wrong, determined individual...
Well it's an interesting argument, but probably not one I'll repeat to the next busybody who challenges me when riding on a FP.
Anyone who's still a C UK member, you might want to ask them what they're planning to do regarding access - I thought they'd lost interest TBH.
It’s an interesting one really, they’re asserting that there’s never been a legal challenge to someone riding a bicycle on a footpath nor a case where someone has sought legal acceptance of their right to use a bicycle on a footpath? So aside from the name “Footpath” there’s not much to say that they have to be exclusively for use by people on foot.
So footpaths are just another form of “Highway” and thus until some form of updated legislation clarifies access rules and/or a case is brought to set a precedent nobody can really stop you riding along them… Right?
Again, it needs to be spun around. A bridleway needs to be maintained and have fixtures and fixings to make egress by horse (and now bike too) possible. So gates not styles for example. I guess as a landowner who currently had as footpath across it, you might be concerned that an 'upgrade' to bridleway (or just binning both and having one term) might also mean an a change in what you are expected to provide.
A tiny(tiny) plus to the Footpath/bridleway system - you pretty much always know a bridleway is ridable when planning a route on a map. In Scotland without that delineation I've definitely been caught out more. Double dashed equals landrover/estate/forestry track and all good; but single dashed can cover a lot of stuff ridable on horse or bike but a load that isn't too.
A public footpath is a highway and hence a public place. So the public have a right of access – presumably on the basis that if there is a public right of passage the owner clearly cannot enjoy the exclusive enjoyment of the land. There is no logical basis for believing that the right of access to a footpath should be limited to access on foot. Rather the issue is whether use is reasonable.
Unfortunately, this is all a bit of a jumble of legal concepts, and the links in this chain don't actually lead to each other.
The author is right to point out that the public's access to footpaths is broader than litetally only walking along it from A to B, and includes whatever stuff that society generally agrees is reasonable use of a footpath (stopping for a rest, taking a pram etc). But what you individually think is reasonable is irrelevant, and the reality is that society just doesn't regard cycling as something that is a reasonable use of a footpath.
Never mind foot vs bike.
The whole land access and ownership is centuries out of date - remember much land was basically stolen from the masses and given to royalist cronies over centuries.
And that needs to be corrected from the top down - 1st get rid on the monarchy.. and bring back hugest swathes of land into common ownership and use.
We were riding yesterday on a footpath on the chatsworth estate. They had a horse trail on so the path was diverted. The estate staff happily pointed us in the direction of the diversion to my very pleasant suprise
Well it’s an interesting argument, but probably not one I’ll repeat to the next busybody who challenges me when riding on a FP.
My standard reply is 'I don't have a bridle and I'm using my feet'.
you pretty much always know a bridleway is ridable
If only!
My standard reply is ‘I don’t have a bridle and I’m using my feet’.
Mine is "Are we really going to spoil our days in the countryside arguing the rights and wrongs of access laws?"
and the reality is that society just doesn’t regard cycling as something that is a reasonable use of a footpath.
It's interesting though that the Ramblers, who you would've thought should leap at the chance to have a definite ruling, have so far declined to take a case to court to actually see one way or the other. I think they are both content with the current haze, and have probably received advice to the effect that it's not as clear cut as they'd like, and a court case may not go the way they want. I find that most folks generally either don't care, or assume it's OK for you to be there (like them) very few folks in reality have a grasp of access laws, and those will find something to complain about regardless of the legality of access
But what you individually think is reasonable is irrelevant, and the reality is that society just doesn’t regard cycling as something that is a reasonable use of a footpath.
At the moment! Things change though, and the more people ride on footpaths (adhering to rule no.1 obvs) the perception may just start to change...
Hiya,
There's a Woodland near where I live in North Somerset used to ride it all of the time, with no problem. Horse riders use it. During lock down, the house leading to the trail changed hands ;-( The new owner, now sits outside and shouts at cyclists attempting to use what was used by locals for years. Doesn't seem to mind horse riders that did far more damage to the paths.
My friend living in one of the farms nearby openly calls the new owner a tosser...
The new house owner also put a speed sign outside house to remind people of the speed limit, rumor has it the local yooths use it to measure how fast they can go through that section 😉
Oh well land of the tolerant long gone...
JeZ
But what you individually think is reasonable is irrelevant, and the reality is that society just doesn’t regard cycling as something that is a reasonable use of a footpath.
Isn't the point though, that nobody has ever ruled (legally) on whether or not cycling on a footpath is 'reasonable' or not.
So until society formally defines it as reasonable or unreasonable it's remains a bit of a "Schrödinger's Right of Way" discussion; cycling on a footpath is simultaneously Allowed and Banned...
I know it's weak, especially as the commonly accepted understanding is that cycling on a FP is "illegal" and that if someone were to test how reasonable bike access on FPs is we'd more than likely loose, but there it is.
Again, it needs to be spun around. A bridleway needs to be maintained and have fixtures and fixings to make egress by horse (and now bike too) possible. So gates not styles for example. I guess as a landowner who currently had as footpath across it, you might be concerned that an ‘upgrade’ to bridleway (or just binning both and having one term) might also mean an a change in what you are expected to provide.
I think I've said it before but that might well be the place to give a concession if FP riding were ever to be recognised as acceptable, yes you can take a bicycle or a pony down it but the land owner should have no increase in their burden of maintenance or access furniture, so ride that FP at your own risk, you might encounter a style or kissing gate, a compromise position that bicycles can generally deal with fine, but Horse riders (and green laners?) would find more challenging. all part of the discussion.
I know some of the local woods near me have all sorts of "cycling Prohibited" signs up that I breeze past frequently, there's no signed prohibition of equestrian pursuits and steaming deposits from them all over the Land Rover width paths, the locals are all part of the pony mafia, so in my book its all permissive bridal ways unless and until horses are banned.
Anyone who’s still a C UK member, you might want to ask them what they’re planning to do regarding access – I thought they’d lost interest TBH.
They still seem very active at local and national level. Not their fault that they have less clout than the CLA with the current government.
I could almost have stopped at this paragraph:
If this is so, then the owner has the right to remove the trespasser. This would be a civil matter between the owner and the cyclist and nobody else would be concerned
9 times out of 10 or more, any comments I've received whilst riding on a FP have come from someone other than the landowner, usually some Vigilante Red Sock type determined to ruin their day. I wonder whether these folk take a similar interest in other matters, like shouting at speeding cars or apprehending shop lifters?
Then you’ve got PROW scams like this wholesale reclassification into footpaths in order to reduce the maintenance burden…
https://path-watch.com/2021/04/20/the-great-prow-swindle/
Our local council has stopped taking requests for PROW alterations, they are 10 years behind dealing with them!
But what you individually think is reasonable is irrelevant, and the reality is that society just doesn’t regard cycling as something that is a reasonable use of a footpath.
Does it not? Having spent my life in small towns and villages, it has always struck me that nobody cares where you ride, and that riding on a footpath is seen as a perfectly normal and very reasonable thing to do. The idea of not using them would appear ridiculous to many.
It's only when you head out into the hills where you have rich land owners with claim to vast swaithes of the countryside where it becomes an issue.
It's more of an issue to me that bridleways, footpaths etc just stop randomly in the middle of a field.
Ramblers...have so far declined to take a case to court to actually see one way or the other.
This doesn't mean anything. Who would they be suing? On what basis? And why would anyone chuck money at attacking a fringe legal theory?
