The village I grew up in has got horrible no-tices on just about every path I used to ride as a kid. Then nobody bothered, but obviously planet of the busybodies now.
Mind I think they are too busy fighting The War on "Wild" Swimming to care.
i ride wherever i want nowadays. i ride sensibly and stop if needed for walkers. i use a bell to let people know i am coming.
and if i am ever challenged i stop and ask the person ' and what business of yours is it'.
i seems to stop the conversation rather quickly.
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?
The Ramblers are more than happy to get to court cases that they see as part of protecting their members interests, and they're very keen on reducing cyclists rights, See this document which tells their members how to block ROW becoming legal routes for cyclists, I could well imagine that they've investigated how they'd go about resolving the matter to their members interests, on what for them isn't a fringe legal theory, but the central basis of their existence.
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?
The late simonfbarnes of this parish was well known for leading Bogtrotter MTB rides on whatever trails he damn well wanted in and around the Lake District and various parts of Yorkshire/Peak District as well on occasions.
He certainly had the occasional run in with grumpy "you shouldn't be riding here" types but in spite of huge amounts of (his own!) photographic evidence that such trespasses has been committed, neither he nor the club ever once had any follow up from Ramblers Association, landowners or anyone else.
The local MTB access campaign group tried to get him on side but he didn't give a shit about the classification of a trail. If it was rideable, he'd ride it so he had no interest in campaigning for more access. 😂
The Ramblers are more than happy to get to court cases that they see as part of protecting their members interests, and they’re very keen on reducing cyclists rights
The members are anti-cyclist, but I was told the officials would be supportive if their membership wasn't so unreasonable.
If it was rideable, he’d ride it so he had no interest in campaigning for more access. 😂
Indeed - I always just wished he'd have modified that to "If it was sustainably rideable". Some of the phohos used to not just show the evidence of them being there, but also the impact a club's worth of wheels can do in the wrong weather conditions. Veered outwith rule 1 at times imo. But I guess the club's name was a pretty big indicator to their attitude to gloop!
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.
It's fair to say the govts of recent years have meant there's no realistic prospect of progress at the national level, and I don't have direct insight any more, but C UK appeared to have given up trying to influence toward large scale RoW reform.
Instead they were all about new long-distance trails.
Trails for Wales is still stalled AFAIK and it's slim pickings here...
https://www.cyclinguk.org/offroadcampaigns
I know it's easy to snipe, but I do still think C UK are best-placed to organise and influence on the issue. It's just personnel issues and other priorities seemed to have totally taken the wind out of their sails.
he didn’t give a shit about the classification of a trail.
Reflects my attitude, I mostly ride alone, so it's less impactful, but the access rights in Scotland reveal how strange the current situation is in England and Wales, and I can remember that one of the deciding factors in the failure of expanding Welsh access was lobbying by the Ramblers who were opposed.
The members are anti-cyclist, but I was told the officials would be supportive if their membership wasn’t so unreasonable.
Hmmm, Their magazines comes to the surgery (I think one of the previous GPs was a member, long gone) and not a issue goes past without the rights issue being raised in the letters pages written by "angry of Kent" . If the leadership is in fact more supportive of expanding access, then they aren't doing much to change their members views.
I'd be interested in a definitive decision about it. This was me a year or so ago, not riding my bike, but pushing it along a footpath.
Can I just check with those who probably know better?
Am I allowed to walk along a footpath in England pushing my bike?
I think this might have come up before, but I’d like to know for sure.
Just had a massive row while walking and cycling the dog with a local farmer family who physically barged me and hit my bike with fencing pliers and generally lost their shit just because I was walking my bike and my dog through their land.
They had loads of angry signs on the gate saying no bikes ridden or pushed but are they actually allowed to say that?
Happy to be proved wrong but I thought that it was ok as long as I wasn’t riding?
It probably isn’t. This is England after all. ****** up to the last. 😠
I really hate stuff like this. I honestly can’t understand what harm they think I’m doing by walking along wheeling my bike. I just can’t understand how folks can summon up enough angst to go to the lengths they did when I’m literally doing no harm. I asked them this but they said it didn’t matter. I guess it doesn’t 🙄
I remember that @kayak23, 3 women was it not? Anything happen at all? Have you been back?
Going back up a few posts, the reason the Ramblers haven't taken a case is that they have no legal standing, only the landowner could bring a case on this issue. Landowners generally have sufficient means to deal with issues - most aren't overly bothered I expect, the rest seem fairly happy to intimidate one way or another and keep most people away.
Change to access Law is interesting, the problem is that it's not really compelling and reliant on a consultation process that the Ramblers etc would organise around and make sure they got the result they wanted rather than the result that suits everyone else.
I think to be successful there are two routes, one is to organise local people to sit down with the map and identify all the bits of footpath that are wrong, but also show how those changes open up the countryside for people. Identify 5, 10 and 15 mile loops that become available to people living in x, y and z and how these routes can impact on health and fitness.
The second is complete reform, as part of the post-Brexit farm funding regime - Identify the bits of trail that can make the biggest difference in the same way and fund their creation and make upgrading footpaths to bridleways a part of that.
So a mix of new trails and upgraded access that's targeted locally at the most useful bits, rather than a blanket national approach that does have genuine issues in some locations. With funding to support.
You would also want to consider ongoing obligations on the land-owners and how those can be minimised and establishing a process that allows local people to say, "This trail is great, and that trail is great, but wouldn't it be even greater if we could link them together?"
The Ramblers are more than happy to get to court cases that they see as part of protecting their members interests, and they’re very keen on reducing cyclists rights, See this document which tells their members how to block ROW becoming legal routes for cyclists, I could well imagine that they’ve investigated how they’d go about resolving the matter to their members interests, on what for them isn’t a fringe legal theory, but the central basis of their existence.
As above - the Ramblers have no basis on which to go around sticking their nose into landowners' lawsuits against trespassers (which basically never happens anyway).
But even if they did, it is a fringe legal theory, having zero academic weight or any case law to support the proposition that cycling is a reasonable use of using a footpath. Is the guy even a lawyer? You'd be mad to spend money worrying about it.
Change to access Law is interesting, the problem is that it’s not really compelling and reliant on a consultation process that the Ramblers etc would organise around and make sure they got the result they wanted rather than the result that suits everyone else.
I'm not convinced that anyone really wants to go down that route.
It's very messy, very time consuming and for what? There are two outcomes:
1) it would formalise what already happens to a greater or lesser degree where some people will simply ride it whatever
2) it would wake up landowners/Government to the "commoners" abusing the system that dates back to feudal times and was essentially put in place to legally allow rich people to nick a shedload of land and then they'd find ways to put a stop to it.
The other factor is it would cost a huge amount of money that the country doesn't have for relatively little in the way of direct benefits - sure there's vague stuff like "more people travelling around the countryside means more spend in local/rural economies" which landowners will counter with "more people travelling across my land means more spend to maintain the land".
Based on the current shower in Government, I'd bet on Option 2 being the more likely outcome. Don't rock the boat...
I remember that @kayak23, 3 women was it not? Anything happen at all? Have you been back?
Yeah, 3 generations of women from the farmer family.
I don't know if they ended up getting a visit by the police or not and I've not been back as it's not really a great route anyway.
Keep thinking I should though.
Just to play devils advocate really by why do we need to cycle on footpaths? I doubt ayone has ridden every bridleway, restricted bridleway BOAT and unclassified lane in their county let alone the country so why demand more. It is a touch greedy. Sadly it fits in with modern society whereby people want things that they don't need or care about, just because someone else has them. The answer that "But I want to use them" reminds me of my priamary school playground. Me, me,me.
We do have to consider the impact. Look at the appalling mess our national parks are in through over use. Look at the state of many woodland areas now that cyclists have decided that todays gratification is more important than anything else. Nice dry, useable footpaths that I knew as a kid are now bloody motorways with braking bumps, bogs and man made jumps.
Might I ask that all those who want FP opened up to cyclists also support the rights of road legal motorcyclists and drivers to do the same. After all it is the some principle that should be applied to a group that has less access to the country side. Apparently the elitists in the access groups felt that discrimination was a great idea as this activity didn't suit their own little prejudice.
You can't even play the enviro card here as anything that gets people out of their houses and into the countryside harms the environment. (Sorry we are not allowedd to to condem hypocrisy here are we) .
Finally might I ask that those who have views in the respect state their location? As usual I bet the support from this will come mostly from those who don't have to deal with the consequences be they increased foot path damage, the building of a new motorway or fast food joint or whatever development you care to mention.
Just to play devils advocate really by why do we need to cycle on footpaths?
To get from A to B (or back to A) without using roads? I mean if we extend your argument why do we need to cycle off road at all, when nobody has ridden all the roads in the UK?
without using roads
How very entitled of you 😂
why do we need to cycle on footpaths?
Why do people need to walk on them?
Just to play devils advocate really by why do we need to cycle on footpaths?
Because riding a couple of miles down a bridle path and then turning round to ride back when it magically becomes a footpath is a bit weird? Most of the categorisation of paths was done in a halfarsed way which has no resemblance to any historical usage. Where I live now there are a bunch of bridle paths, rupps and boats whereas where I used to live despite its pretty much identical historical usage is mostly footpaths.
We do have to consider the impact.
Sounds like a plan. So lets look at what sort of traffic a specific path is suited to. There are footpaths near me which are year round safe vs bridlepaths which I dont go near for half the year because they are too fragile when wet (sadly the ramblers dont agree and wreck them).
Nice dry, useable footpaths that I knew as a kid are now bloody motorways with braking bumps, bogs and man made jumps.
Manmade jumps are obviously irrelevant to the access argument. Since if you are making trails then you are going to be relaxed about the concept anyway. That said where you do live that people build jumps on footpaths as opposed to building their own trails?
Apparently the elitists in the access groups felt that discrimination was a great idea as this activity didn’t suit their own little prejudice.
Sorry the people wanting greater access are the elitists? Not the ones wanting it restricted to just them and their pals?
As usual I bet the support from this will come mostly from those who don’t have to deal with the consequences
Ah you are one of those elitists wanting to keep the land just for yourself eh? Explains a lot.
Just to play devils advocate really by why do we need to cycle on footpaths?
I don't think anyone "Needs" to ride a FP but there would be benefits (and drawbacks) to recognising a right for bicycles to use at least some FPs. Health and traffic avoidance being the obvious benefits for bicycle users. Ultimately RoWs need perioding reviewing by someone independent, without fear or favour to any of the stakeholders...
Half the issue is that footpath/bridleway designations often pre-date much of their surroundings and/or the user groups that have chopped and changed over time. RoWs were "Established" on the basis of previous general use anything from 50 to 100+ years ago. Hence our RoW network isn't really reflective of our current population or the modern means of transport people might reasonably expect to use on it. Just because Current RoWs exist as they are today, doesn't mean they have to remain unchanged for all time...
I don't think it's "Greedy" for people to want to ride a bicycle on low/no traffic paths which have long been established for use by "commoners". Obviously Rule 1 needs to be observed, in doing so some of the anticipated friction (mainly with with Ramblers?) could well be mitigated.
At the same time part of me wonders if anything does actually needs to change?
i.e. allow people to just carry on riding FPs as the Rules about doing so are already opaque and it's a 'Right' that doesn't seem to have been challenged or tested legally ever, so why disturb that situation?
The "reasonableness test" is a subjective one and context is everything;
e.g. a short 100m section of FP primarily ridden by kids as a way to avoid traffic heavy roads getting to/from school could well be deemed reasonable. Whereas cyclists using another 100m FP along the edge of a bit of woodland, that has poor drainage and gets hacked to buggery by tyres and/or hooves in winter, and also happens to run parallel to a boring, but traffic-free established bridleway could well be argued as unreasonable... The real problem is that local and national government lack the resources and/or an appropriate frameworks to actually review RoWs.
The question of whether things need to change is very location specific I think. I grew up riding bikes in the Lakes and rode wherever I wanted without any regard for classification - it was irrelevant, I caused no bother, no one was bothered.
Now I live in Durham where the Grouse lot have run-amok over decades, there are Land Rover tracks that were horse and even train tracks going back centuries, they're footpaths now and policed by people with quad bikes and shotguns. It's a huge huge area of land that is in industrial use, has the potential to provide huge benefit to walkers and bikers, but is the preserve of a small number of gun people. The grouse aren't even bothered by bikes anyway, it's the walkers with their dogs that are the problem.
Change is needed round here as you can't just ride it regardless.
Just to play devils advocate really by why do we need to cycle on footpaths?
Because it's fun and we should be able to do that which is fun and does not affect others, provided we do it in such a manner. Even besides the most obvious mis-categorisations. There's a very robust vehicle track near me that goes past a big historic castle that's now derelict. It was lived in until the 40s at least, so the access track was clearly built for cars and is still used by them, there are houses along it and it opens to the road on each side. Passable by normal cars. It's a footpath though. I was initially unsure but I've had nothing but cheery hellos from the residents and the codgers on e-bikes old enough to have seen the castle lived in, so it's hard to ascribe it to hooliganism. It forms part of a beautiful local loop with another similar footpath which is the tarmac driveway of a big country house which is now converted to flats and a gated community. Even the extremely rich residents wave and say hello as I cycle through.
If you can't move to Scotland you should move to South Wales where even if you see anyone they don't care.
why do we need to cycle on footpaths?
The real question is why do certain people have the right to exclude others from certain areas, whether they be footpaths or otherwise?
You can’t even play the enviro card here as anything that gets people out of their houses and into the countryside harms the environment
In a direct sense, yes, everything has an impact to some extent.
But the big picture suggests the opposite. We have a real problem as a society with the way the natural environment is viewed and treated, and getting people out of their houses and interacting with it is by far the most effective way of getting people to recognise the value of it, which is the key step in starting to better protect it. Conversely, telling someone they can't access it because someone with more money and power than them wants to shoot birds on it is a great way to prevent them developing any sort of interest in it that might threaten that status quo.
South Wales I was threatened by a farmer for pushing my bike on a footpath, he actually released his cows from his shed to try and scare us off!
We were only there because I'd had a smash and was walking back to the car with a bust-up knee. Going back to the original post, under those circumstances the bike was very much a natural accompaniment!
The “reasonableness test” is a subjective one and context is everything;
e.g. a short 100m section of FP primarily ridden by kids as a way to avoid traffic heavy roads getting to/from school could well be deemed reasonable. Whereas cyclists using another 100m FP along the edge of a bit of woodland, that has poor drainage and gets hacked to buggery by tyres and/or hooves in winter, and also happens to run parallel to a boring, but traffic-free established bridleway could well be argued as unreasonable…
Just to play devils advocate on this... the national park footpath that has the difficulty of a bikepark tech black and/or with a few unridable (and unsignposted, duh) sections; but would be an enjoyable recreation for about 1% of bike riders how would that fare? or worse, if an existing bridleway met that description, wuold it be downgraded?
As above – the Ramblers have no basis on which to go around sticking their nose into landowners’ lawsuits against trespassers
They're more than happy to express their views on white papers, and reply to Govt (local or national) consultations and join court cases as co-respondents that they find either supports their position, or ensure that permissions are maintained - where landowners are trying to restrict access for instance. There's no reason to think that they wouldn't be interested if a landowner decided to try to prosecute someone cycling on a footpath.
But even if they did, it is a fringe legal theory.
May very well be to most folks. It's entirely central to the Ramblers stance on protecting access rights for their members to the exclusion of other types of users. See any number of consultations that have failed to allow greater access for horse riders and cyclists over the years becasue of lobbying by Ramblers
Ramblers 'likely to oppose' allowing cycling on footpaths - BBC News
What happens when the Ramblers get themselves included as a respondent in case is that their standing isn't challenged. It's a niche area of law, but I suspect that if the other side paid enough for their Barrister they would start by challenging the Rambler's standing in the case, because they don't have any.
so why demand more. It is a touch greedy.
There's no good reason not to permit most users the most access to the most countryside that can be accommodated. The experience of Scotland and every other country in the world that permits shared use demonstrates this. The conflict; when it does arise, happens for no other reason other than because of the separate definition to which users can point to. If it didn't exist people would be forced to accommodate each other.
Just to play devils advocate on this… the national park footpath that has the difficulty of a bikepark tech black and/or with a few unridable (and unsignposted, duh) sections; but would be an enjoyable recreation for about 1% of bike riders how would that fare? or worse, if an existing bridleway met that description, wuold it be downgraded?
Who knows, Play Devil's Avocado all you like it's all just wild speculation about stuff that's not happening.
As I see it there's really 3 basic options and all come with various up/downsides:
1- Do nothing: All extant RoWs remain as currently designated, no change or review of their status' and the various user groups can keep on sniping at each other, landowners can continue to not bother going to court to get cycling on FPs banned and instead rely on our very British respect for 'rules' and observation of signage to prevent most plebs on wheels from trundling across their land...
2- Proper case by case reviews of all RoW across England and Wales by Local Authorities: Very time and resource intensive, there's no real framework or set criteria for doing it on such a massive scale, it will be difficult to ensure all interested parties are fully/equally engaged with and represented, different stakeholders will inevitably be variously pleased/pissed off at the variable outcomes.
3- Adopt the 'Scottish model': much less time intensive, lots of people will still be pleased/pissed off but it won't cost as much. It will need to come with some public campaigns and probably a bit of legislation to try and get the great unwashed to comply with Rule 1.
My personal choice would be for option #3 but failing that I'd settle for #1 TBH, as I just don't trust our public bodies and/or the wider public to behave like adults or dedicate the money/time to achieve option #2...
Country estate one side of me has strictly no bicycles signage up. I can't really figure out why, doesn't strike me as an obvious route, but I have walked down one of the FP and it presented as some challenging cheek. Plus it's owned by some famous people and from what I gather there have been access issues over time.
There's a FP alongside the estate which converts into a Restricted Byway, which then goes across the same estate. Never ridden that but will speak to the farmer when I see him next and see if he's OK with me riding it. Best to keep your neighbours onside.
Conversely, the nearest large woods is about 3sqm with no habitation at all, part of a 5000 acre estate. Relatively few ROW but fair game on any paths as far as I'm concerned. If there's a shoot on I'd probably steer clear though.
Interesting isn't it how our attitudes are influenced unconsciously I did a 3 day bike packing trip recently all on legal rights of way and then wild camped illegally twice...
This article appears to have disappeared from the Cycling UK site and now redirects instead to https://www.cyclinguk.org/article/cycling-guide/where-can-i-cycle-off-road . I guess it was a bit too far on the cheeky side.
That's really annoying... I think it was first published back in 2014 or something, and dissappeared shortly after then too.. Frustrating really, I wish I'd downloaded a version for reference!
Cheers,
Keith
This article appears to have disappeared from the Cycling UK site and now redirects instead
Luckily the Internet Archive exists! Anyone like me who is late to the party and would like to know what it said should be able to find it here:
