Forum menu
Interesting article. Thanks for the link
@tonyf1 Living very close to the Bathurst Estate myself for many years and received my share of bollockings for either riding in there or running in there after hours including from Bathurst himself. I am fairly sure alot of the estate is not public footpath but actually private estate which is merely given access to the public during certain hours. There are a few certain sections which are bridleway (near Sapperton) or footpath but the majority is neither.
Has anyone suggested just nicking the honesty box yet?
I presume things are different in Scotland with different access laws? How does it work out there?
Due to a tradition of using cycles to access some hills along estate roads and the like, cycles were considered as an accompaniment to walkers rather than as a separate class of use so have pretty much always been allowed on "footpaths".
Personally I think the access laws in England and Wales just need to be routinely ignored if anything is to actually change.
Rule 1 obviously applies, as it does in Scotland. Snowdon and Ben Lomond are good examples. Its legal to ride both but one has a voluntary ban and the other is covered by "responsible use" So if you went up Ben Lomond on a Saturday afternoon you would rightly get a bit of stick. Do it on a quiet morning or evening and any walkers around will probably just give you a bit of encouragement
Admittedly the current situation is testing everyone, but when it settles down and the new "Covid Countrysiders" have returned to the pubs and retail parks then cyclists should be pushing for responsible access to footpaths or just riding them until everyone sees sense.
Bit I’m thinking about is the footpath that runs passed the air shaft at the Sapperton Tunnel. It’s a public footpath on OS but sign states hours of operation which implies no right of access outside hours.
Option 5: Move to Scotland, or somewhere else without such stupid land access rights.
Option 6: Lobby the Welsh Government - why do we have to use these silly english laws....
Rule 1 obviously applies, as it does in Scotland. Snowdon and Ben Lomond are good examples. Its legal to ride both but one has a voluntary ban and the other is covered by “responsible use” So if you went up Ben Lomond on a Saturday afternoon you would rightly get a bit of stick. Do it on a quiet morning or evening and any walkers around will probably just give you a bit of encouragement
I take a responsible access approach to footpaths in Wales. Wouldn't ride a welsh coast path in summer, but a rare cold and dry Tuesday in February is fair game.
Does he need planning permission for his new toll road?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/shortcuts/2014/aug/04/private-toll-road-bristol-bath-a431
Option 5: Move to Scotland, or somewhere else without such stupid land access rights.
Nah it's full of smug ****s.
Personally I think the access laws in England and Wales just need to be routinely ignored if anything is to actually change.
They are, really. Everyone walks and rides on the 'mountains' (the colloquial name for the high land between the South Wales valleys before anyone gets pedantic) - casual riders, families, the lot, no-one cares regardless of RoW access. And the amount of MTB trails being built in the forestry by MTBers is quite incredible.
re nuisance - yes, cycling past livestock could be argued to be a nuisance but it's totally legal (albeit rule 1 / bad form) on a bridleway so how can it be a nuisance in one case if not the other.
Not saying it's correct or not (legally or morally) but that's one of the gists of the CTC article which I linked previously about why cycling appropriately on footpaths should be allowed.
yes, cycling past livestock could be argued to be a nuisance but it’s totally legal (albeit rule 1 / bad form) on a bridleway so how can it be a nuisance in one case if not the other.
Well, a farmer could put his pregnant or vulnerable animals in fields that do not have bridleways on the assumption that they won't be spooked by bikes. In that case, it would be a nuisance on the footpath but not the bridleway.
and if the bikes are ridden at walking pace?
Nah it’s full of smug ****.
Fair enough, stick to the eternal plebacy then.
He's effectively creating a contract, like private parking. I wonder what rules apply eg liability as referenced above.
Fair enough, stick to the eternal plebacy then.
My post wasn't a dig at Scotland (a place I like), it was a dig at the smart arses who come out with these stupid lines. That you also then came out with 🙂
Tinners
...I presume things are different in Scotland with different access laws? How does it work out there? (I mean in terms of possible damage to land/fences and how the landowners are compensated – or not)....
Yes much better.
We always had the right of open access but the recent laws put it in black and white.
In the past, 50+ years ago, we'd carry wire cutters and spare wire so if a gate was locked, we cut through the fence*, and then wired it back up. We had more than a few confrontations with gun carrying posh types, but just told them to eff off, we knew our rights.
It surprises me that people are prepared to accept restricted access. Maybe you all need to get a bit Bolshie like we were. It's much more pleasant these days.
*EDIT: mesh deer fences usually 7' or more high. For ordinary barbed wire fences we used to carry a bit of canvas to put over it, and then step over.
That you also then came out with
Need a cuddle Molly?
Merely pointing out that if you lot down there continue to 'know your place', nothing will ever change.
Blaming us for it is a bit rich mate. Where were you in the great revolution in Scotland that I must've missed?
Where were you in the great revolution in Scotland that I must’ve missed?
It's probably worth remembering that Scottish access laws were only enshrined in law relatively recently. Access to the countryside was largely based on a historical tradition of access.
Essentially it was a legal grey area. You didn't in fact have a legal right to access the land but landowners also had very little legal recourse to prevent access, which funnily enough is pretty much what the situation is in England and Wales at present. Somehow for the most part it worked okay and the tradition of access persisted until it was made actual law in 2005.
The other Scottish anomaly is the bicycles were never considered separately from walkers
Hmmm, a mate of mine owns the land directly to the south of it. I'm sure that little strip of trees are his. I wonder if he knows about it.
Christ Molly, you DO need a cuddle! 🙂
Merely pointing out that if you lot down there continue to ‘know your place’, nothing will ever change.
As a Welsh person, I agree. It runs deep.
Sometime around the 1850s, we just gave up.
I’m definitely with the Bolshie faction. We need to stop doffing our caps at landowners and demand access rights equal to Scotland. Suggesting that we tiptoe around these people so we don’t frighten them is just a way of continuing deference.
Power to the people! As Wolfie Smith would say.
If It's an honesty box he's got up then he's not actually charging is he?
Cough up. (or don't)
molgrips
Blaming us for it is a bit rich mate. Where were you in the great revolution in Scotland that I must’ve missed?
It only happens because you permit it. That's why I said you have to get Bolshie.
And as for where I was when the great revolution happened, I was in Australia, cutting my way through fences there (and wiring them back up).
Restrictive property laws are rights that have been stolen from you, so bloody well steal them back or flout them.
You're already good at the Bolshie bit, now aim it at the right people... 🙂
It only happens because you permit it
Me?
That’s why I said you have to get Bolshie.
Like what? Organise a mass trespass movement? Take on the world single-handedly? I'm not sure I can handle that, I have work and a family and stuff. Is that what you did to get access in Scotland?
You seem to be suggesting that the English and Welsh are all happy to be subservient. Which is bollocks, insulting and quite ignorant of the different contexts, IMO. Victim blaming, if you like.
or flout them
We do - read back.
Like what? Organise a mass trespass movement? Take on the world single-handedly? I’m not sure I can handle that, I have work and a family and stuff. Is that what you did to get access in Scotland?
Almost the opposite. Almost.
The first draft of the Land Reform Bill was published just before Foot and Mouth erupted. If you were to read that draft, you'd be shocked at some of the constraints being put forward; no night-time access (and therefore no wild camping), no rights over "agricultural" land (which included sheep grazing) and a few others. During F&M, two things became apparent. The first was that the public generally took on board all of the advice about avoiding certain places, disinfecting shoes on arrival and departure etc. showing that, as a whole, they could be trusted to act responsibly. The second was that land managers were shown to be openly flouting the law by illegally restricting access. Some of us were involved in highlighting this second point and re-gaining access via both militant means and by raising issues with the Police, LAs and the Scottish Govt. (FWIW I lost a role with the Pentlands Hill Regional Park as a result). When the Land Reform Bill came back to parliament, it was substantially changed and almost every restriction was removed.
There is definitely a balance to be sought. It is necessary to act with a certain degree of caution when trying to change things but sometimes, it's necessary to push the boundaries by actually getting involved and doing something other than whinging on an internet forum
I just read about this. It seems that everyman's right always existed in Scotland, it just wasn't enshrined in modern law. So it was just a case of fine tuning (or resisting erosion of) what you already had.
In England and Wales we'd have to overturn laws that specifically prevent us from accessing private land, which is a much greater task.
molgrips
You seem to be suggesting that the English and Welsh are all happy to be subservient.
More Stockholm Syndrome perhaps.
And mass disobedience and activism is the only way you're going to get your laws changed.
Or are you waiting for the nice chaps who own your country to suddenly decide to be really nice chaps and remove the restrictions voluntarily.
Oh, and by the way, it's not smugness to be happy you have freedom to set foot in the wilds of your own country. It may be incredulity that others don't have it in theirs.
It only happens because you permit it....Restrictive property laws are rights that have been stolen from you, so bloody well steal them back or flout them.
Well said. There's far far too many folk (not necessarily mountain bikers) walkers and the like who are full of "you shouldn't ride here, or "It's illegal" and the answer to all of them is "Mind you own business".
There was a comment piece in the Guardian by George Monbiot yesterday around this very same topic.
The amount of forelock tugging in the comments beggars belief.
Most of the arguments essentially boiled down to "the public can't be trusted to use the land"
"Stockholm Syndrome" is probably the right term.
In England and Wales we’d have to overturn laws that specifically prevent us from accessing private land, which is a much greater task.
Getting rid of the remaining hereditary members of the House of Lords would be a start. They are still going a long way towards blocking public access reforms. When it comes to democracy we are still a joke when you get more of a say because your great great…grandmother shagged a king or your many more great grandfather chose the right side in a fight.