Forum menu
Ace stuff.
Would like to be a fly on the wall in that 'review' 😈
I tweeted at the NT Northwest Twitter account and got this reply today:thanks for this. We’re about to remove these signs and will review with Holcombe Moor Commoners Association.
Result
Me too!
I had a reply to my tweet...
National Trust
@nationaltrust
Sep 04
@EdaleSkyline thanks for getting in touch. We’re about to remove these signs and will review with Holcombe Moor Commoners Association.
Excellent. Well done folks! 😀
I’ve also just had a message on Twitter that the signs are coming down and the situation will be reviewed with the Commoners. ?
So, if anybody else would like to ask them the same question just to reinforce the point it is @NT_NorthWest .
No pudding for somebody today. 😀
i received the following reply from NT this morning:
Thank you for your email.I have forwarded your email to the property at Holcombe Moor so that your comments can be read and considered. I am sure you will hear from them shortly.
I hope this has helped and thank you for your support.
Kind regards
Karen Jewell
Supporter Services Centre
National Trust
They've forwarded your email to the bloke who put up the sign? 😯
[img] http://www.electronicspoint.com/attachments/farmerpalmer-jpg.12398/ [/img]
They've forwarded your email to the bloke who put up the sign?
yep...i used my work email address....bollocks!!
if he turns up i'll be waiting for him with these:
[img] 
[/img]
if he replies then i'll have his details...which is all i need. i track people down for a living so it wont be hard to get all his info from the many databases i have access to. if he gets funny with me...then i'll be having some fun at his expense!
[i]i track people down for a living[/i]
gonzy, earlier
[img] 
[/img]
^^ busted... 😉
The resemblance is uncanny.
The resemblance is uncanny.
lol!!
New to this thread. Read the first page, and went straight to the last page. Result! The keyboard is indeed mightier than whatever is holding that sign up.
Nice one!
Not reading all that - but, what they are saying is : it's illegal to ride footpaths. Ok, we all know that.. but maybe, just maybe, they are trying to appeal to the nature loving, animal caring, countryside-friendly attributes of MTBers by saying - these are the perfectly reasonable and caring purpose of these rules...
The main access track up Holcombe Hill is a footpath. Given it's used by vehicles to get to the farm at the top, I'm not going to worry too much about supposed damage by my bike.
ransos - Nice one!Not reading all that - but, what they are saying is : it's illegal to ride footpaths. Ok, we all know that...
Not sure where you quoted that from and cant be arsed to look through the whole thread but its [b]NOT[/b] illegal to ride footpaths and cyclists really should know that
[img] 
[/img]
The main access track up Holcombe Hill is a footpath. Given it's used by vehicles to get to the farm at the top, I'm not going to worry too much about supposed damage by my bike.
Indeed. Heres a picture I took at the tower, just after taking the picture of the new signage. Note the 4x4 tyre tracks heading up the footpath. So its ok for the farmer to drive his Land Rover over the moor, but they want to stop cyclists riding on it?
[img] 
[/img]
So its ok for the farmer to drive his Land Rover over the moor, but they want to stop cyclists riding on it?
He *is* the tenant/owner/squatter, and has work to do.
Not sure where you quoted that from and cant be arsed to look through the treads but its NOT illegal to ride footpaths, and cyclists really should know that
It would be best to clarify this statement.
This is true of most footpaths, but where the land owner e.g. the Malvern Conservators has managed to get a specific bylaw in place, then it IS illegal to ride on the footpaths.
[i]has work to do[/i]
but all of the reasons they gave to stop cyclists on footpaths woudl apply to vehicles 'having work to do' will not stop those baby robins dying if you drive past them.
It would be best to clarify this statement.
This is true of most footpaths, but where the land owner e.g. the Malvern Conservators has managed to get a specific bylaw in place, then it IS illegal to ride on the footpaths.
Technically, that would be a "MAYBE" rather than an "IS" - it is only criminal because the landowner has NOT giver permission, however it remains within the landowners powers to grant authority. A perfect example would be the Forestry Commission, where riding on any FC land is technically illegal under the byelaws, but the FC have given extensive permission to use the land regardless of this.
In the case of common land, the landowner has the authority to give permission to do anything they want on the land, as long as it does not interfere unacceptably with the rights of the commoners, or is restricted by law (eg, erection of fenced enclosures on common land) - given that a great many commons are already subject to S193 of the law of property act (unrestricted access for air and exercise on foot or horseback) or foot access under CROW, the argument that giving permission for bikes would interfere with the rights of commoners (if any exist) is at best spurious.
jimw - It would be best to clarify this statement.
This is true of most footpaths, but where the land owner e.g. the Malvern Conservators has managed to get a specific bylaw in place, then it IS illegal to ride on the footpaths.
Nice clarification but the number of clean footpaths vastly outweighs the number of bylaw restricted footpaths so in general and more times than not, its NOT illegal and the quicker people understand that, the better.
I'm trying to think of an analogy but failing.
#bunchofsnitchers
😆
My understanding: The legality of it isn't really to do with the footpath status. It's to do with the bylaw.
It's only illegal to ride on a footpath if there's a bylaw forbidding it in the same way it's only illegal to walk on an area of land if there's a specific law forbidding it.
The absence of a right of way for cyclists isn't the same as a law forbidding them. There's no specific RoW saying you're allowed to carry your shopping bags on footpaths or walk a dog. That doesn't make it illegal.
FYI the NT does have its own set of byelaws...
The thing is (not that it really really matters, but for the sake of clarity) how is a regular person expected to be aware of such bylaws, even more so with spurious /fake signage, it's a recipe for confusion.
What I cant understand is the inflammatory angle towards cyclists. Such a sign can cause divsions and resentment etc.
I don't find it hard to understand at all.
Have the signs gone now?