[Closed] Is there any case history of cyclists being prosecuted for riding on a footpath

It would be a private prosecution as it isn't a criminal matter unless there's a specific by-law in place (as there is in the Peak District)

As above, if you mean a "rural" type footpath, its civil trespass, not a criminal act. Been touted on here that no one has been sued for it either, the landowner has to prove some sort of loss, I believe.

Edited when I read your post properly

If you mean normal roadside pavement/footways, then lots of people get ticketed. Usually for Rule 1 as much as the actual offence, from the one guy I worked with who got done.

Prosecution I believe/understand only occurs if you don't pay the on the spot fine.
Then it gets complex as under 18's can't be made to pay on the spot and can't be held without a parent or guardian.

Not really looked into this but that was what was being said when they tried to give PSCO's the power to fine kids for riding on the pavement. Passed through the commons no problem but was stopped by the Lords... (and I'd always thought they were useless)

Bylaws are where there potentially will be something, MOD usually have them for their land and other area's have them as well

I imagine some retired barrister with a footpath in his backgarden may have done something but finding out about it will be hard unless you work in the legal profession

If there is a tro (traffic regulation order, by local council) prohibiting cycling or a local byelaw that would make it a criminal offence.

the landowner has to prove some sort of loss, I believe.

That, or can sue simply to get an injunction against you doing it again. I can't imagine many circumstances in which that would happen. Obviously, if you are asked to leave, and fail to do so, then the landowner I suppose could get police involved, but you'd have to be telling the police you won't leave before the actual criminal offence of aggravated trespass becomes relevant, and you are far more likely to be committing separate public order offences at that point.

Even the late simonfbarnes of this parish who was famously dismissive of anything so parochial as rights of way legislation never managed to get done for riding on footpaths, in spite of regularly leading Bogtrotters rides of sometimes 20+ riders on all manner of trails in the Lake District (and posting photographic evidence of it all).

Even the late simonfbarnes of this parish who was famously dismissive of anything so parochial as rights of way legislation never managed to get done for riding on footpaths, in spite of regularly leading Bogtrotters rides of sometimes 20+ riders on all manner of trails in the Lake District (and posting photographic evidence of it all).

I'd like to see much, much more of this sort of behaviour.

Nope, never known of anyone have more than an angry walker shout at them.

I know this isn't what the OP was talking about but since it's been mentioned:

If you mean normal roadside pavement/footways, then lots of people get ticketed. Usually for Rule 1 as much as the actual offence, from the one guy I worked with who got done.

Interesting responses so far. I've just made an FOI request of this nature just now. Will post the response.

Yes, I believe Alan Parker made a film about it called Midnight Express. You have been warned.

I’ve just made an FOI request of this nature just now.

To whom? Who would hold information of that detail about civil matters?

Waits impatiently for Bez...

I don't think landowners (in theory at least) have to prove you've damaged anything (to accuse you of trespass), just that you're on their private land and it's private and you should therefore get off. I think the complexity comes from that fact that a footpath is obviously a public space, so you're not really on their private land. You're just crossing it. next up is the fact that you'd have to prove that riding a bike is "against the public good" (or some such legal term) In theory it says that "in a public space a member of the public can do anything that a reasonable member of the public can expect to do" and riding a bike is obviously something that you could expect to classed as reasonable behavior on or in a public space

The "passing through" argument has been tested in court (3 times I think, one involving protesting) and in each case as been found in favour of the member of public rather than the landowner.

There's a reason that no-ones been prosecuted, it's because it's not at all clear that a jury would find in favour of the landowner, and any judgement would become precedent...

FOI made to the CPS

I think this shows that while our access laws are bit flawed in practice they actually work pretty well most of the time. Yes you can't ride on a footpath, but if you do nothing will happen, other than maybe get shouted at by a grumpy rambler. It gives quite a nice hierarchy and most riders temper their riding to suit the rules. Trail centre > bridleway > footpath > cheeky. I'd still prefer open access but I'm pretty happy with what we have.

FOI made to the CPS

Asking specifically about trespass, which is a civil matter, and outside its remit? Or something else?

I can confidently predict that the number of cyclists prosecuted for trespass has been pretty steady at zero for the past few years.

Well let’s see what they say, no harm in asking

Nope, never known of anyone have more than an angry walker shout at them.

Rather OT because we were on a bridleway at the time, but last autumn we had an angry farmer come charging up a farm track towards us after we'd gone around a field boundary on said BW. She shouted that we weren't on the right of way. I pointed out that we were as close to the BW as possible, and if we'd strayed off it, maybe she should make the BW clearer. I also added that she could do nothing whatsoever if we had strayed a few metres off it, so why the shouting. She got angrier, accused me of being very rude and told us that the police were waiting at the bottom of the lane. We rode away laughing at her. (Partly because one of our guys had pocketfuls of mushrooms collected in the fields just over the ridge, and we were heading to another of our guy's houses before we got to the end of the lane for beer. There were no police. It was an enjoyable day. 😀 )

I've found that when people start making a fuss, it's when they don't know their ROWs.

https://www.copfs.gov.uk/foi/responses-we-have-made-to-foi-requests/42-responses2012/353-prosecutions-against-pedal-cyclists

I was under the impression now that, for a long time, the guidance from the ACPO has been to “use discretion” rather than just blanket fine people for pavement riding.

It's all weird ... there was the time the transport Minister said people should if they feel safer and a near instant response from some police body saying "we will prosecute if you do".

As usual I suppose it is who you are not what rule you are breaking

But Johnson’s official spokesman said the mayor was “unaware that he was apparently in contravention of the Road and Traffic Act”.

Oh, so that's OK..I mean where could he possibly find a legal opinion at the time?
Oh, wait sat on his bike with him....

There almost certainly is a long case history. However, you will need to read some legal textbooks covering the correct areas of law to find out.

https://www.cyclinguk.org/article/campaigns-guide/cycling-on-footpath-trespass

I was under the impression now that, for a long time, the guidance from the ACPO has been to “use discretion” rather than just blanket fine people for pavement riding.

Hence you only actually get done if you break Rule 1 and ride on the pavement like a dick, the point I obviously failed to get across very well.

From the CyclingUK link above ^^

A user only has lawful authority whilst actually passing along the right of way, or doing something directly associated with passing such as stopping to consult a map.

I like this. It means that stopping for a chat on a footpath is exactly as illegal as riding a bike on one. That is to say, not illegal.

The test of 'reasonableness' is interesting too. Would a 'reasonable' person think it OK to ride a bike on a footpath? The 'reasonable person' is ill-defined in law but it doesn't mean a consensus or average person. It just means a person who is reasonable could come to the conclusion that <cycling on a footpath> was OK. I consider myself to be reasonable, I consider most of you lot* to be reasonable too, and I'm sure others ride on footpaths. By this rationale, I'm sure I can find any number of 'reasonable' people that would attest that footpath-riding is OK.

* Obvious exceptions may apply!

The test of ‘reasonableness’ is interesting too. Would a ‘reasonable’ person think it OK to ride a bike on a footpath?

If this ever does get to a court I think the crux will be how the person was riding. I think we can imagine what a jury would consider reasonable.

I have something to get off my chest. I was sure shocked by this. I was googling rights of way. Did you know we have the right to ride on a bridleway but must give way to horses and pedestrians?

Of course I'm careful around pedestrians. But when you come up behind some one you can let them know. But you can't actually give way can you. I'm assuming it's narrow

paton
Free Member https://www.cyclinguk.org/article/campaigns-guide/cycling-on-footpath-trespass/blockquote >

I do love a link Paton's found on Google that doesn't answer the question.

 

Omg. Paton's link shows the following offence. I think that would catch a few of us out!?

"Road Traffic Act 1988, S30(1): Riding cycle whilst unfit"

I'm just wondering how many here tick the box 'riding cycle while unfit'?
I'm certainly fitter than I used to be but what's their measure? 😉

😂 @AdamT - great minds...

Did you know we have the right to ride on a bridleway but must give way to horses and pedestrians?

Yes because they tend to remind you of it if particularly snotty. Most however are fine if you are not hooning down a trail like you have a right to barge everyone out of the way.

Be nice, say hi

I was sure shocked by this. I was googling rights of way. Did you know we have the right to ride on a bridleway but must give way to horses and pedestrians?

I'm shocked you would be shocked by this

I’m shocked you would be shocked by this

I'm shocked that you'd be shocked that they'd be shocked.

Its obvious that cyclists give way to pedestrians and horses. common sense and politeness

Its obvious that cyclists give way to pedestrians and horses. common sense and politeness

As I say I've never not given way. But I've certainly heard cyclists who were outraged that pedestrians didn't get out of there way.

We are johnny come lately on Bridleways, not included in the original post war legislation. We were allowed on through the 1968 Wildlife and Countryside Act section 30 with the proviso that we do not inconvenience other users, hence giving way and not being allowed test of speed events.
The surface of any road or PROW is invested in the Local Authority not the landowner thus damaging crops is not illegal if one is on the correct line. If there is no clear line on the ground and one can't see the exit 'The route is where the user deems it to be'.
If a footpath is dual status but unsealed ie if it is also an ORPA then it is legal up to horse and carriage and also for mechanically propelled vehicles used to reach property or land adjacent to the route. However it will not show as such on OS mapping.
Furthermore there has never been case law for pushing bicycles. Say I was walking my bike in a pedestrian precinct. That's fine as I'm walking thus a pedestrian, just as someone pushing a pram would be. Footpaths are for pedestrians so surely as I'm one whilst pushing my bike I'm legal. Never been tested and won't be as a case would be prohibitively expensive.
Lastly there is currently no law of trespass. Boris was rather keen on one until he was recently found to have trespassed whilst camping with Carrie. However if illegal usage has damaged the footpath then a criminal damage case could be brought by the council. But one man's wear is another man's damage. For such a case to stick one would have to damage the substrate.

I can see why cyclists dont have the right of way over pedestrians and horses but I do think walkers should be made more aware of the possibility of a bike being on a bridleway. In general I think a pedestrian is less aware of when they are on a footpath or bridleway as in terms of ROW it doesn't really matter to them. This leads to some serious shock from pedestrians when a cyclist comes past when it shouldn't be a huge surprise.

As I say I’ve never not given way. But I’ve certainly heard cyclists who were outraged that pedestrians didn’t get out of there way

Giving way isn't the same thing as allowing someone else to make your passage impossible - and there are dicks on both sides of that "argument"

Just as on the roads, where I would expect car drivers to yield to pedestrians and cyclists, I would always get out of the way of walkers on any footpath or BW - I treat them just the same. I'm not going to risk charging into a group of pedestrians, however much of a 'right' I have to be riding there. The one exception to this is dedicated bike trails - walkers should probably expect riders to be there and they may have to get out of the way. However, if we are in favour of bikes on footpaths, it's pretty shaky logic to deny walkers the right to use bike paths.

It just comes back to rule #1.

FWIW, I'm completely happy for the whole area to remain vague. While a bit of clarity would perhaps indicate where we can ride,  it also does the opposite. That may not be as welcome as some would perhaps want.

Part of a regular ride I do involves riding along a lovely quiet (well, in normal times) trail, the Dollis Valley Greenwalk. Most of it is shared cycles/pedestrians, but for some reason, bits of it are 'no cycling' according to signs. Not sure why, perhaps different local authorities. Utterly stupid, as there's no suitable alternative signposted, and there appears no sensible reason to allow cycles on some bits, but not others. So I just ignore the signs. As do loads of other people. You get the odd old **** huffing and puffing over people riding bikes in the 'Verboten' sections, but that's about it. Been like that for years. No-one's died yet.

FWIW, I’m completely happy for the whole area to remain vague. While a bit of clarity would perhaps indicate where we can ride, it also does the opposite. That may not be as welcome as some would perhaps want

Yep. I agree. At the moment we can ride in loads of "illegal" places without any problems. Do it at quiet times and be polite and it's generally fine.

There are new “no cycling” signs everywhere around here, often on tracks/roads. The vagueness only works in our interest while cycling where there is no right of way for riding is tolerated.

I've got to wonder OP, why are you interested? I mean, I can see why someone may be interested in "has anyone ever been prosecuted for [eg] racially abusive language" but the point of that would be to suggest its not taken seriously enough by the relevant authorities.

The status quo may not be so much longer

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-countryside-code-launched-to-help-people-enjoy-the-outdoors

Part of a regular ride I do involves riding along a lovely quiet (well, in normal times) trail, the Dollis Valley Greenwalk. Most of it is shared cycles/pedestrians, but for some reason, bits of it are ‘no cycling’ according to signs. Not sure why, perhaps different local authorities.

Happens a lot out in the hills as well. BW ---> <---200m section of FP---> <---BW.
Different authority or landowner, parish boundary, incorrect recording of RoW, some well-meaning council "risk assessment" that has (wrongly) deemed that particular section as unsuitable for bikes...

You see the evidence of these risk assessments on trails quite a lot where there are signs all over it saying "steep slope, cyclists dismount" as soon as the gradient gets over 3%.

There used to be a short section of the Sett Valley Trail in Derbyshire that was "No Cycling" (in spite of the rest of the route specifically being for walkers, cyclists and equestrians). The alternative route was to go down a steep road hill, do a sharp turn onto a main road, along there for 200m then up a steep road climb to regain the trail at the next legal point 100 m (of fairly level ground) from the start. Unsurprisingly, no-one took the blindest bit of notice of that, especially when riding with kids (it's a popular family route) so eventually the council just replaced the No Cycling signs with ones requesting that cyclists give way to pedestrians. A rare example of common sense prevailing.

kelvin
There are new “no cycling” signs everywhere around here, often on tracks/roads. The vagueness only works in our interest while cycling where there is no right of way for riding is tolerated.

I believe we live in a similar area (though I could be wrong) & I'm noticing a lot of "Public Footpath (walkers only)" signs lately. I wonder if there is someone new in the office who has a budget to burn through.

Hiya,

Last weekend I was knocked off my deliberately by a Van on a field ironically on Police land. Let me explain what happened, riding a well known cut through trail in the west country. Guy in a van shouted at me, I ignored him as I'm used to abuse in this area. Five minutes later heard a reving engine guy drives into the side of me in his flat bed van. Three guys jump out and try to assault me, I fended the, off but not before being threatened with further violence. Two Ramblers had a go at the men for being over Zealous and out of order. Bearing in mind the land I was on was just a field and it is part of the Police HQ of a police force, they seemed to have scant regard for law in any case. Pretty sure it wasn't the land owner though, because I've seen him a few times with his tractor and he never bothers and waves actually.
Anyway I'm in two minds to report it because the behaviour seemed more pikey than anything else. I doubt even if I do report it I would do anything but give away my address.
I'll just avoid the area in the future I think and think of payback later.

This attack will be the third attack on me since I've been mountain biking so be careful guys, there's some serious loons around.

JeZ

Anyway I’m in two minds to report it because the behaviour seemed more pikey than anything else.

The word you're looking for is criminal. As to why you'd think twice about reporting it it's a criminal offence, at best that's common assault but given you're not on a road it's much more likely to be looked upon as a very serious assault rather than an "smidsy, anyone might do that by accident" Road traffic offence.

That some councils have passed byelaws to make cycling on footpaths an offence is good evidence that it's not an offence already.

Also, following the logic from the link in the earlier post about whether cycling is reasonable, it doesn't follow that because there's a law that says it is legal to cycle on a bridleway, it's necessarily not lawful, or trespass, to cycle on a footpath.

A more interesting question than prosecution for riding on a footpath would be whether there has ever been a successful claim against a cyclist for damages for trespass by a landowner, or a prosecution for assault (either way round) following an attempt by a landowner to use 'reasonable force' to remove a cyclist the landowner believed to be trespassing.

Anyway I’m in two minds to report it

Er, what the actual...

Regardless of whether you are trespassing (civil issue) it does not give someone the right to attack you.

Regardless of whether you are trespassing (civil issue) it does not give someone the right to attack you.

Hiya it's taken me a week to even admit it. I'm not weak and worked for the forces at one time. I come from an area where guys like this prevail. When you are surrounded by 4 guys and under a van it's not easy to fight back. My wife has made me promise not to go back and take them on, on more even terms. I know this all sounds unbelievable, it is they are seriously nasty. I should report, I know, but if I do I give my address away. I travel on business and if they know where I live they may attack my family. They did this attack next to a school and next to two walkers. They are not scared.
If anyone knows how to report without revealing my address, let me know?

JeZ

There's a lot of ill informed wishful thinking here. It is and has been since the early 50's an offence to ride on a public footpath.
However a public footpath is such without prejudice to other rights which may also exist. It is at least a footpath but may be an ORPA also. It may turn out to have historical rights higher than footpath, though that door slams shut in 2027 in England at least.
Rights of Way Law is not vague, it's second in complication only to tax law. What is vague is the public's understanding, which given said complexity is quite understandable.

It is and has been since the early 50’s an offence to ride on a public footpath.

Citation required?

I should report, I know, but if I do I give my address away.

What, they've infiltrated the police have they?

The police don't arrest people and say "Bob at number 27 Bike Lane has reported you for assault"

It is and has been since the early 50’s an offence to ride on a public footpath.

No. It's an offence to ride on a footway (path or pavement next to a road) It's not an offence (unless there are traffic order or by-laws in place) to ride along a footpath. (the green dotted lines on OS maps and other stand alone paths) That's the point of this thread, there isn't any case-law, and it's undecided whether riding a bike along one constitutes a public nuisance, and hence a criminal offence.

Conventional wisdom says that while it's not criminal, it's trespass against the owner of the land, and so a civil matter between the landowner and the cyclist. This also (AFAIK) has never been tested, and there's an evens chance the the landlord wouldn't win a case.

I agree with you that it's complex, for many people (landowners and cyclists alike) it's also vague.

A lot of people confuse a lack of legal rights with being illegal but it's not as simple as that. Everything is legal till it is illegal, there must be a law that says no.

A walker has a legal right to use a footpath and so when using it has the law on their side.

A cyclist does not have a legal right to use a footpath so when using it does not have the law on their side.

There's also that thing about natural accompanyment... If you are walking and have something perfectly natural like a pram with you then the pram is covered by the walker's rights. Some argue that a cyclist walking with a bike is perfectly natural so you're covered.

But then some bylaws overrule that.

In reply to nickc above, I'm sure some judge or similar said it's perfectly legal to ride along a pavement when other options put the rider's life at risk also there's bylaws in place around Sheffield that specifically ban cycling from pedestrianised parts of the city (which surely wouldn't be needed if it's already illegal) so while I'd generally say riding pavements is illegal, I'm not sure it's even as simple as that.

Also isn't trespass designated as willful damage or something like that? Walking along with an umbrella accidentally frightening birds is fine, walking along flapping an umbrella frightening birds on a shooting estate is not fine. Crossing a field and using a gate is fine, crossing a field and damaging a gate as you go through it is not fine.

It’s an offence to ride on a footway (path or pavement next to a road)

And even that is open to interpretation too because of the sheer number of shared use foot/cycle paths there are where a well meaning but ignorant council has painted a line down the middle and called it "cycle infrastructure".

Where that stops in the middle of nowhere, how can a cyclist be legally compliant one moment yet 5m further on from the paint, it's illegal? Same pavement, same surface, same width...

The blue "Cyclists Dismount" rectangular signs are advisory not mandatory so even there, a cyclist (and the police) have significantly muddied legal stuff to negotiate in determining if it's an offence or not.

Also isn’t trespass designated as willful damage or something like that?

No, no damage has to occur. Just coming onto some-ones private land without their permission is trespass. but the only real recourse they have to ask you to leave. (and they can direct you as to which way that is). The complexity comes from the fact that a footpath is a right of way and as a member of the public you have a right to be there, whether it crosses someones private land is moot (maybe, who knows) .

So can a landowner ask you to dismount and walk? Who knows. Can a landowner ask a cyclist to get off their land as it's a foot-path? Again, who knows. None of these are criminal acts, and it's not clear whether they're trespass either, so it's not clear whether is a civil matter at all.

There was a case where a man was protesting (carrying a placard) and stood still on a footpath. The Judge directed the jury to find him not guilty (of trespass), not because of some over-arching right of protest, but on the grounds that protesting on a right of way (ie a public 'space') was a normal thing for a member of the public to expect to be able to do in public, so even forcing a person to make progress along,  perhaps isn't even something enforceable either. Again, hasn't been tested, (on cyclists) no-one knows for sure.

The acid test is...Why hasn't a body notorious for it's anti cycling stance; The Ramblers, (or the NT) pick either one, forced the issue in court? They're forever ranting about it, why not haul some woe-begotten miscreant in the dock "pour encourager les autres"? The answer maybe is 1. it's a waste of money, and 2, more serious for the Ramblers, is that they may have been advised that it's perhaps not a winnable case...and that making a loud song and dance is more productive and cost effective propaganda

There's been quite a few threads over the years on here about the legality of footpath riding and I've done a bit of my own research. Some of what is written above is spot on and some falls into the category of opinion stated as fact.

I'd summarise that it's not illegal (byelaws excepted), but if informed by the land owner or an agent thereof, then you must stop riding immediately and may proceed with your bike as a pedestrian on the footpath. You are liable for any damage but simply cycling along is highly unlikely to be taken to court and to my knowledge never has been. You do not need to provide your details to the landowner, which also makes a private damages claim difficult.
PSPOs (Public Space Protect Orders) could be another interesting way to ban cycling on footpaths, but so far I'm not aware if any have been used in such a way.

@cloggy wrote:

Furthermore there has never been case law for pushing bicycles. Say I was walking my bike in a pedestrian precinct. That’s fine as I’m walking thus a pedestrian, just as someone pushing a pram would be. Footpaths are for pedestrians so surely as I’m one whilst pushing my bike I’m legal. Never been tested and won’t be as a case would be prohibitively expensive.

See 'Crank v Brooks'. A pedal cycle being pushed is classed as a pedestrian.

and then @cloggy wrote:

It is and has been since the early 50’s an offence to ride on a public footpath.

This is incorrect. I think you are confusing 'footpath' with 'footway' as others have said.

I'm afraid I am not. I worked in a highways dept for four years and then was a freelance PROW surveyor. I also represented mountainbikers at the Welsh National Access Forum for some years.
There are four catagories of PROW; the lowest being public footpath which is only legal for pedestrians. Bicycles are legally allowed on the next three catagories; public bridleway, restricted byway and byway open to all traffic.
The complication comes when one route serves two legal entities, ie where a public footpath also happens to be a tarmaced [or not] council road. Unsealed non dual status council roads are shown on OS mapping as ORPAS
A pavement beside a road is part of the highway and under entirely different law. Not Public Right of Way law but highway law. PROW are regarded as amenity routes whereas Highways are for commerce, or were at least considered to be so when first sent within the list of streets to the dept of Transport and Aviation. There are blurred lines between the two entities on the ground but not in law.
Others have opined that because a law is being enforced it is no longer a law. The law is the law whether enforced or not until such time as it is legally expunged by Parliament. There is a difference between law and practice but that does not invalidate a law set out in Parliament.
All the above applies to England Wales and Northern Ireland. If any denizens of the USA have chanced upon this thread, well you're in a different country.

The law is the law whether enforced or not until such time as it is legally expunged by Parliament.

What piece of legislation sets out the criminal offence of riding on a public footpath?

From Cycle Uk

Is cycling on a footpath illegal?

No - it is classed as a trespass against the landowner, which is normally a civil offence rather than a criminal one. This means that the landowner can sue the trespasser for damages in the civil courts, but the police are not involved and there’s no criminal record for the offender.

However in some placed byelaws might apply, in which case the situation is different, and use would be a criminal offence (albeit very minor), although we're yet to meet anyone who has been convicted of such.

The confusion often comes from Section 72 of the 1835 highways act, which makes it an offence to ride on "any footpath or causeway by the side of any road" ie. a pavement, rather than a public footpath.

It is an offence to cycle on any highway (including public rights of way) in a reckless or careless manner, or without due care and consideration for other users.

Cycling UK is campaigning for wider use of the footpath network for cycling (not to be interpreted as saying that all footpaths should be open for cycling), as the current system reflects only historic recorded use rather than suitability for use - many footpaths are better suited for cycling than nearby bridleways.

There are four catagories of PROW; the lowest being public footpath which is only legal for pedestrians. Bicycles are legally allowed on the next three catagories; public bridleway, restricted byway and byway open to all traffic.

I agree the law doesn't permit cycling on a public footpath, but I'm not aware that it prohibits it. If it's an offence, the relevant law will specifically state that. I don't know of any such law, if you do, please reference it.

Interesting so your official policy as the organisation recognised by Parliament to be representing the legal needs of cyclists is that it is legal to ride on footpaths, since if it is not illegal then it must be legal? Permit prohibit? This seems to be dancing on the head of a pin.
I'd like to see you get that past the Ramblers association.
As for cycling on Footpaths being generally allowed that's pipedream for pretty much the same reason. It's also a matter of resources, which don't exist.
But then I had CTC telling me with great assuredness that Wales was going to adopt the Scottish Access Bill.....

I don't represent Cycle UK (formally CTC). My previous post was from Cycle UK's web site. I just thought it might be helpful.

As for cycling on Footpaths being generally allowed that’s pipedream for pretty much the same reason. It’s also a matter of resources, which don’t exist.

So again, under what statute would I, assuming the resources were in place, be prosecuted in relation to riding on a public footpath? You were very specific about a law being in place.

Greybeard
I agree the law doesn’t permit cycling on a public footpath, but I’m not aware that it prohibits it. If it’s an offence, the relevant law will specifically state that. I don’t know of any such law, if you do, please reference it.

This is my understanding too.

since if it is not illegal then it must be legal?

Correct

Interesting so your official policy as the organisation recognised by Parliament to be representing the legal needs of cyclists is that it is legal to ride on footpaths, since if it is not illegal then it must be legal? Permit prohibit? This seems to be dancing on the head of a pin.

I think you've mixed up two separate posts there. I posted the bit about permit and prohibit but didn't mention Cycling UK. It's not dancing on a pin at all. It's a principle of English law that something is legal if there's no law (statute, common or case law) against it. There's a law that says you can ride on a BW - that means the landowner can't take any action against you for trespass. There's no law that says you can ride on a public footpath, and therefore it's presumed that the landowner can take action to remove you. You've written that it's an offence to ride on a public footpath - which law says that?

@cloggy you appear to have a fundamental misunderstanding of how the law in England and Wales works. I hope the NAFW had others advising them on the law.

nulla poena sine lege

You are absolutely right and I apologise. As for resources well I'm on firmer ground there. PROW depts have been cut to beyond the bone and are neither able to proactively investigate routes to be added before the 2027 cut off or investigate footpaths suitable for cyclists. That's yet another Cycling UK happy day dream. As the head of the Byways and Bridleways Trust once said to me after a national meeting. "They're away with the Fairies". Rather as my grasp of the fundamentals of English Law, as it turns out....

Got involved in a pretty tense situation yesterday, pushing bikes down a footpath.

Was met by a man almost frothing at the mouth, with his off road buggy parked across the path. Aggressively shouting we were on his land, escalated pretty quickly with his brother and dad running down the road grabbing us, and pushing us.

Coincidentally there was an off duty police officer passing who attempted to diffuse the situation, had he not shown up not sure how far it would have gone.

Wasnt aware you couldn't push a bike down a footpath, seems ridiculous that you can't.

The level of aggression that we were met with Vs the act of pushing a bike down a path (was historically a bridleway, but landowner reclassified it as a footpath) was significantly disproportionate.

I'd be reporting that aggressive behaviour to plod.

Where was that Marps? Sounds like you were assaulted

We didn't report it as there was an off duty police officer there and he appeared intimidated by the confrontation and was siding with the landowners.

Given his response on the day, we felt it was likely pointless and given the technicality of us being on their land and no real physical altercation occuring (other than pushing and grabbing), it would be difficult to prove anything untoward had happened.

We were being firm that it wasn't appropriate how aggressive they were being and didn't appreciate how the situation was being handled and felt their request for us to turn round and walk back was a bit harsh given the context. We did end up walking back as we just wanted to end the day as we'd set out to.

They were incensed that we had bikes and it was odd that they were at the bottom of the lane as if they were waiting for people on bikes to pass.

This was on old route called wallabies revenge near Macclesfield.