[Closed] Has there ever been a campaign for riding access to footpaths?

It's not just about erosion though, most issues are going to be user conflict.

The only conflict I find really is on tow paths, even where there's shared use there's some stubborn people about. Can be very polite, step aside and wait and still get a grumpy comment or look. It's a minority though. I've taken to using the bell if I'm heading for a tow path as it's less hassle, even though the cheap bell that came with a bike is crap and doesn't work half the time. I get some pleasant smiles for using it, along with the shock and leaping to the side to get out of my way despite ringing it a mile off, and then the sarcastic "at least you have a bell"

on and there'll be a crack down

sideshow - Member
I'm definitely not a believer in following unsuitable laws

I am however a believer in updating laws to make them more suitable nonetheless

I'm on favor of removing the distinction between footpaths and B.w, but ^this argument is dangerous as the same argument can be used to increase speed limits for example. The rights of way for bike law is not one that needs updating really as it is not progress that has changed the situation, it was the the distinction between B.W. and footpaths has always been wrong as it was arbitrary.

'Crack down'

water cannon, helicopters, riot police and increased fines for non bell ringers

What is Scotland's policy for maintaining row? And has it changed after the act?

I also fear the approach to bridleway maintenance of many English councils expanding if all trails got the same status with every trail becoming a 1m all user path covered in planings because that's bikes and horses need right?

We need access to any ROW to all non motorised users, with no obligation on land owners to improve access eg replacing stiles with gates.

We get greater access, but we won't bother if there are too many stiles, so some routes will effectively remain bike free for walkers. The landowner has no additional maintenance obligation, so no problem for them.

There will be some knobs on bikes upsetting people, just as there are knobs who walk.

Simple law, bet it won't happen though. Not because of Tory landowners, because of the rambling lobby.

Simple law, bet it won't happen though. Not because of Tory landowners, because of the rambling lobby.

It won't happen because no-one really wants it apart from a collection of day-dreaming, wannabe, mountain bike activists hypothesising on the internet unless Call Me Dave reads this thread and is stung into action by the huge injustice of the whole RoW situation... 😉

The footpath access in England is there as a result of an act of mass trespass.

We could try the same, but we we'd just be seen as a bunch of hooligans* who tear up the countryside, whereas walkers had old folk and high up supposedly respectable type members of the community on their side.

I think this could a good form of protest, but by spreading out over all our paths. Breadth rather than depth. Not a mass trespass over one footpath. but over all of them.

But it still risks being portrayed as marauding louts etc

It won't happen because no-one really wants it apart from a collection of day-dreaming, wannabe, mountain bike activists hypothesising on the internet unless Call Me Dave reads this thread and is stung into action by the huge injustice of the whole RoW situation...

worryingly astute observation.

[quote=eddie11 ]What is Scotland's policy for maintaining row? And has it changed after the act?Rights of Way still exist in Scotland but they cover only a tiny fraction of the routes used. The LR(S)A did not introduce any additional burden on landowners to "maintain" additional tracks and paths. What it has done is to encourage the use of unlocked gates rather than stiles (particularly important for horse access).

eddie11 » What is Scotland's policy for maintaining row? And has it changed after the act?
Rights of Way still exist in Scotland but they cover only a tiny fraction of the routes used. The LR(S)A did not introduce any additional burden on landowners to "maintain" additional tracks and paths. What it has done is to encourage the use of unlocked gates rather than stiles (particularly important for horse access).

Thanks

@TheBrick

this argument is dangerous as the same argument can be used to increase speed limits for example

Funnily enough I am in favour of increasing the motorway speed limit (though ending the tacit acceptance for breaking it by 10mph)
Also certain major roads which are currently at 30/40/50
Though in other places 20 is entirely appropriate and I approve of those schemes
All about context...

While we're at it lets have a filter-left-on-red law for cyclists
And pretend-to-be-a-pedestrian-if-you're-going-slowly

And if that doesn't derail the thread then you can all award yourselves a boy scout zen meditation badge 😈

I ride on footpaths, seems to me someone making a big hoo-haa about it will bring the fact that many mtbers use footpaths to someone in authorities attention and there'll be a crack down, bringing the rules to the attention of everyone, militant walker and casual walker alike. I say keep quiet and ride on as we are under the radar

This, again. Been doing it for the last 30years or so, always mindful that foot traffic has right of way, smile, be nice, polite and everyone is happy.

Can somebody clear something up for me please? If you follow a right of way on a bike what law are you breaking? You are not trespassing as you have a legal right to be there so you can't be done for that. If you are causing damage then that is a civil matter between you and the landowner and this has to be proved and you are liable for the cost of repairs.

In essence what is the legal position for access on footpaths by bike? If we have a legal definition of this then it would help me understand what we need to do, or not do, to try and change things.

Like BWD I ride footpaths in the peak district even more so since the Rushup Edge debacle. But I think open access would be disaster in the Peaks. I ride sensible times and when the conditions are right. I'm lucky if I see another person on many of my rides. The peak is in reach of millions of people and having bikers and walkers on the same trails on a sunny Sunday or bank holiday would just cause conflict or accidents. I'd much prefer a more considered approach such as that on Snowdon or how the Eastern Moors have been opened up rather than a free for all.

[i]Rights of Way still exist in Scotland but they cover only a tiny fraction of the routes used. The LR(S)A did not introduce any additional burden on landowners to "maintain" additional tracks and paths. What it has done is to encourage the use of unlocked gates rather than stiles (particularly important for horse access). [/i]

This.

If England and Wales adopted the same 'policy' as Scotland then the landowners would be under no obligation to maintain the ROW, but as no one could see that occurring then landowners would be totally against a Right-to-Roam act with the obligation to maintain ROW's. And quite rightly so, otherwise it is an open-chequebook of cost and grief.

...whereas walkers had old folk and high up supposedly respectable type members of the community on their side.

I too am largely with BWD on this, the problem comes with the general public / leisure cyclist opposed to enthusiasts / mountain bikers.

Quite a few people I know have bought bikes and just gone where the chuff they like as they know nothing of the rights of way system. So its all well and good for a few people being respectful but it is literally everyone else not giving two hoots.

Instead of trying to change the law, what we need is to educate non-cyclists that riding footpaths is not illegal and educate everyone else regardless of the ROW status, to not be a dick

A lot of people need to pull their heads out of their bottoms. This isn't just about the Peaks, or even about mountain biking. The current RoW system drastically limits access to the countryside, and that's not a good thing.

http://bristoltrails.tumblr.com/post/57865780053/better-safe-than-sorry

Anyone read the Welsh Green Paper yet?

http://gov.wales/consultations/environmentandcountryside/improving-opportunities-to-access-the-outdoors/?lang=en

The way the document is worded makes me think that Scottish-style access is, if not a shoo-in, at least on the table. And if Wales go for it, England will be odd one out.

No I can't envisage open access in England in the next 5 years, but that doesn't mean it won't happen.

Some good debate here.

A key challenge is understanding the difference between "open access" and "riding on footpaths". One potentially leads to the other but they are far from the same thing. Open access is as much about stepping (riding!) off the path well trodden as it is about riding on footpaths.

Much like Snowdon's access arrangements, there will be some popular footpaths and even bridleways where a more structured approach will be needed during busy times. Common sense rather than simply new rules. Some interesting reads on the [url= http://www.peakdistrictmtb.org ]Peak District MTB[/url] pages...

[url= http://www.peakdistrictmtb.org/index.php/81-you-re-just-a-nuisance ]You're just a nuisance[/url]

[url= http://www.peakdistrictmtb.org/index.php/75-some-thoughts-on-open-access-in-england ]Some thoughts on open access in England[/url]

Like BWD I ride footpaths in the peak district even more so since the Rushup Edge debacle. But I think open access would be disaster in the Peaks. I ride sensible times and when the conditions are right. I'm lucky if I see another person on many of my rides. The peak is in reach of millions of people and having bikers and walkers on the same trails on a sunny Sunday or bank holiday would just cause conflict or accidents. I'd much prefer a more considered approach such as that on Snowdon or how the Eastern Moors have been opened up rather than a free for all.

So you are sensible enough to police yourself but the great unwashed aren't?

Open access involves responsibilities as well as rights.

For example, if I want to ride down Ben Lomond on a Saturday afternoon then there is nothing stopping me, but it would be stupid and inconsiderate. Even though this is a right afforded to me its my responsibility to use this right sensibly, riding down a honey pot hillwalk on a Saturday would fall well outside of responsible use.

Like wise if some one wanted to walk their dog at Glentress they could but it would be equally stupid and inconsiderate.

Access laws in England and Wales are stupid, they should be changed for the better and if any problems arises they can be addressed individually (As is the case in Scotland)

Continued blanket stupidity isn't the answer

So changing the law will change people's behaviour? That's a non enforceable law of course a we don't as yet have police patrolling the foot paths.

So changing the law will change people's behaviour?

Irresponsible mountain bikers will ride irresponsibly whether they are "allowed" on a particular piece of trail or not, but the debate will slowly educate at least some of them which is a good thing even if nothing comes of the campaign.

One of the ideas behind open access is to give access to more land to ride on with the advantage of spreading the load. If the reality is that too many mountain bikers descend - quite literally - on busy footpaths on sunny weekends, then exceptions will have to be introduced. It already happens on Snowdon as we know.

For example, if I want to ride down Ben Lomond on a Saturday afternoon then there is nothing stopping me, but it would be stupid and inconsiderate. Even though this is a right afforded to me its my responsibility to use this right sensibly, riding down a honey pot hillwalk on a Saturday would fall well outside of responsible use.

Isn't this covered by the proposal for a right of responsible access?

Would hurling down Ben Lomond on a Saturday afternoon slaloming between walkers be responsible? No,
Would it be reasonable? No,
would your actions already be covered by Road Traffic Legislation? Yes (S29 If a person rides a cycle on a road without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road, he is guilty of an offence.)

seems the bases are all covered really.

Welshfarmer you're talking absolute arse.

I think we have this argument every time this topic comes up Scotroutes

You can debunk concerns, but not issues. And there are documented issues. So please do not try and sweep them away. Sure it works in the eyes of those who want it to work, especially if they themselves are responsible. However, not everyone out there is, and you have to accept that. Have a look at Glen Etive and the problems of littering there. Why are you no longer aloowed to camp in Glencoe on the flat ground on the old road to the Clachaig?

Glen Etive has a public road. Part of the Queen's highway running down it. The scumbags that camp and dump crap there are not going more than 100m from their cars. They are already breaking several laws by doing what they are doing. They did it before the change in the law and will continue to do so. The reality is that if you ask the rural police man in Dalmally or wherever they're based to to and tackle 30 neds drinking in Glen Etive on their own they won't, because they'd be killed and there's no phone signal.

To use it an an example against open access is bonkers, daily-mail esque misinformed fear-mongering.

manton69 - Member
Can somebody clear something up for me please? If you follow a right of way on a bike what law are you breaking? You are not trespassing as you have a legal right to be there so you can't be done for that. If you are causing damage then that is a civil matter between you and the landowner and this has to be proved and you are liable for the cost of repairs.

In essence what is the legal position for access on footpaths by bike? If we have a legal definition of this then it would help me understand what we need to do, or not do, to try and change things.

The law is simple. With the exception of motorways, pavements beside roads that aren't marked for cycling, and anywhere covered by specific bylaws forbidding riding, no law is broken by just riding responsibly, RoW or not.

And of course, trespass is not a criminal offence, only civil, but that applies where it's not a RoW.

Damage however can be a criminal offence. That's why there's been threats about criminal damage over trail digging to get the police involved as they're only interested in the digging.

You could also be done for stuff like public nuisance, endangering lives, being under the influence while riding. Likewise breaking laws of the road while on the road, plus if you have a driving licence you can have points put on it for offences broken on a bike.

plus if you have a driving licence you can have points put on it for offences broken on a bike.

I thought that was a myth?

plus if you have a driving licence you can have points put on it for offences broken on a bike.

Source?

I think in the UK at least (which is what we are discussing) this is a total myth

Cops on my speed awareness course said it for one when the topic went very anti cyclist. Sure I heard it from some cops on a radio phone in recently too, but no I don't have a definite source at present. Will investigate.

Edit: This says myth - http://www.astounding.org.uk/ian/cyclelaw/licence_points.html

Though seems some cops believe otherwise.

Cops really aren't a great source for obscure points of law!

I gave it a good google and it seems it is effectively a myth although apparently theoretically possible under certain circumstances.

I Think the points thing is a myth
A mate got a fine, but No-points, for cycling home on his Pub bike.
Proper "tired and emotional" to the point he couldn't walk, slept most of it off on a park bench and got busted wobbling home, the next morning

Most footpaths aren't worth riding anyway, too many gates, boggy, overgrown, difficult to ride uphill.
But the ones that are worth riding are heavily used by bikes anyway and get little complaint by the dog walkers.

edit: realised I'd written a load of rubbish

A Scottish stile:

[url= https://farm1.staticflickr.com/418/18782421478_92909d86ca_b.jp g" target="_blank">https://farm1.staticflickr.com/418/18782421478_92909d86ca_b.jp g"/> [/img][/url]

Still it beats me getting out the wire cutters.

Most footpaths aren't worth riding anyway, too many gates, boggy, overgrown, difficult to ride uphill.

For my two-penneth...
I honestly think the "cheeky trails" approach is not making our case any stronger, as there's an implicit acceptance that being there is "wrong".

Instead, we should be riding those trails whenever we like, regardless of how it's designated. Just be nice to everyone you meet on the way and ride appropriately.

Of course, if you want to go full-tilt and knock your friend's time off the Strava leaderboard, then you're going to have to ride when it's quiet, but that's not a reason to avoid riding those trails responsibly at busier times.

all the best bits are designated as footpaths.

where I am, the best bits aren't even marked on a map. so if I ever do encounter am angry walker, we are both equally in the wrong...

jam bo - so if I ever do encounter am angry walker, we are both equally in the wrong...

Unless its open access land in which case you are wrong and the walker isnt... sort of

Surely the perception that bikes shouldn't be on a footpath tends to increase conflict, and makes criminal bylaws and physical barriers against bikes far more more likely?

[quote=Ecky-Thump ]I honestly think the "cheeky trails" approach is not making our case any stronger, as there's an implicit acceptance that being there is "wrong".

Depends on how you see the "cheeky trails" thing - for me it's the law which is wrong, not my presence. I am ignoring the law because it is wrong rather than because I am a scofflaw.

I recall reading the British Social Attitudes survey a few years back. It showed roughtly a 50-50 split between answers to the following

"If a law is wrong should you
1. ignore it
2. obey it anyway"

(or words to that effect).

So on the cheeky trails argument. Let's say the law is irrelevant to you and what you really want to do is legitimize cycling rather than legalize a right of access. On the basis of that survey, you'll only convince half the population to agree with you at most. To convince anyone who answered (2) to the above you have to get the law changed, even if it's only a means to an end.

My experience is that pretty much everyone who has had an objection to me riding on footpaths is really only annoyed because I'm willingly breaking the law.

The fact that its NOT against the law is what the general public, including most cyclists, need educating on.

Also whose call is it to decide a law is wrong? I think the law that says stabbing your co-worker who constantly hums out of tune is a bad thing, is wrong, but I suspect if I break that law I'll not get far with that defence

I don't get this thing about riding on footpaths not being against the law. We don't have a right of way, so surely we're then trespassing which is wrong?

Looking at the access thing from a different angle.

When was it democratically decided that people should not have open access to the country?

Maybe this should be decided democratically?

After all if you can be conscripted to fight and die for "freedom"and your "country", should not that freedom include the right to access to your country. 🙂

chrispo - I don't get this thing about riding on footpaths not being against the law. We don't have a right of way, so surely we're then trespassing which is wrong?

Trespass is not just being somewhere without permission, its wrongful interference with one's possessory rights.