That is correct. Riding any other footpath is a "only" a civil offence (trespass?) not a criminal offence.

Fill your boots and make sure you inform anybody who objects as you do it.

Yep. A footpath along the side of a road is a pavement and covered by road traffic law. Once away from a road it's purely a civil matter with the landowner. That's why you see 'no cycling' signs on alleyways. I'm happy to ride footpaths. In 30 years or so I've had 3 confrontations with landowners. Each time they've asked me to leave which I did and we both left happy. Generally ride politely and give way and nobody minds. As far as I am aware nobody has ever been prosecuted for riding on a footpath (that isn't a pavement)

A footway runs along the side of the carriageway to form the highway. The 1835 highway act considered a bicycle to be a carriage, therefore it is only allowed on the carriageway.

A footpath is a different beast altogether.

Yes, there is no specific law saying you can't ride on a footpath. It's just trespass, you don't have any right to do it, the landowner can ask you to leave and (potentially) sue you for damages. There are few ways in which trespass can be criminal, but generally speaking it is not.

A policeman mate told me a few years ago that the law about riding on footpaths only states the following
"It is illegal to ride a bicycle along a foot path that runs adjacent to a road"

[url= http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Will4/5-6/50/section/72 ]Correct[/url]

There is nowhere that says "you cannot ride a bicycle along a footpath."
Is this true?

No [b]general[/b] rule

If so does that mean that any footpath away from tarmac is game?

That's a complex answer...

Generally, you would be committing an act of trespass against the landowner, you could be ejected from the land by the landowner or their agent, using reasonable force if necessary. You could also, in theory be liable for damages in the event that you did cause any significant damage.
There are also types of land where you could be in breach of byelaws or other statutes
It would also be possible for you to be in breach of certain other public order acts if you were utilising the footpath to, for example, disrupt lawful activity.

There may also be complex defences against byelaws etc, dependent on the nature of your use.

Or was he pi55ed up at the time?

Possibly

Any legal experts out there that can clear this up please?

A few of us.

Happy days

ninfan, my understanding of the trespass law was that there has to be intent. i.e. going onto property without permission, with the specific aim of doing damage?

Is that not right, then?

ninfan, my understanding of the trespass law was that there has to be intent. i.e. going onto property without permission, with the specific aim of doing damage?

No, you're getting mixed up, that would be plain old criminal damage

You can't be done for aggravated trespass for trespassing (on land) with the intent of just causing criminal damage, the test is that of an intent to intimidate or disrupt/defer/obstruct lawful activity, and in order to do so there must be someone present, IIRC that was settled by a GM crops damage case some years ago. (Of course if you entered a building to commit criminal damage that's burglary, and you can also be done for aggravated trespass in buildings)

You can commit aggravated trespass on a public footpath, however there are also defences regarding use of a public footpath for protest that would mean you might not be trespassing - each case would be different but it would depend on the nature of the protest and the level of obstruction involved. Same would apply to a charge of S137 obstruction of a highway.

Complex area, that sometimes makes me realise what a geek I am 😉

Strictly speaking it should be called a walkers trail or foot trail.

NOT footpath. Its misleading

[quote=ninfan ]There are also types of land where you could be in breach of byelaws or other statutes
...
There may also be complex defences against byelaws etc, dependent on the nature of your use

For example: http://www.malvernhills.org.uk/manage/byelaw.aspx#Cycling

I reckon I know what I'd be using as a defence if they tried using that against me for riding on the Herefordshire side of the hills (to the left of this map, the border is the dashed grey line along the summit ridge http://binged.it/1f0SAIf ) as opposed to on the Worcestershire side where pretty much all tracks are classified as BWs.

footpath is the correct technical term, hora - why do you think it confusing? If it's because of confusion with the pavement alongside a road, then that's simple because that isn't a footpath it's a footway.

This talk of trespass reminds me of an incident when I was a student, trying (and failing miserably) to find a trail or two near where I was living. There was a bridleway across some farmland that I was trying to follow, it looked like it went into a green lane but that turned out to be just a hedge. So I was a bit lost, then I saw the road on the other side of a field about 100 yards away. So I climbed a gate, rode across the wet field and a woman in the adjacent house set her dog on me. So I sprinted for the gate and climbed over it. She then flagged me down and told me off.

I'm thinking that I simply committed a civil offence, but she did worse by setting her dog on me, no?

I'd think it a bit tricky if it's her dog loose on her property.

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-33523320 ]should let cyclists use 'em[/url]

The general rule of [i]don't be a dick[/i] applies to footpath riding.

Just to be clear, are we supposed to give a monkeys about an 180 year old act of law about off carriageway cycling?

At this time of year, i'd suggest that all good trail-poachers should be stopping when necessary to trim back the enormous killer-brambles.

i reckon that any footpath that's only passable because i ride with secateurs* is fair game.

(*and a folding saw, and sometimes small shears)

Last time I met a landowner he told me off for riding singletrack through his forest and told me to get on the footpath where I belong

Last time I met a landowner he told me off for riding singletrack through his forest and told me to get on the footpath where I belong

Last time I met a landowner he told me off for riding singletrack through his forest and told me to get on the footpath where I belong

In the case of the landowner being a massive company like a few places in the Peaks the 'landowner' to tell you off would be thousands of shareholders, the likes of you and me if you own a share or shares on a utility or power company 😀

So if a walker or Ranger said 'this is a footpath' and it was undesignated/access land and not marked as a footpath you could say.....are you a shareholder or THE Landowner? 😉

With regards to pavements being footpaths I get that the law is the law, but, there are a couple of places that I ride mtb where a long windy hill climb on a road has a pavement next to it. I must have ridden there 40-50 times and never seen anyone walking on the pavement. The road is however quite busy, fast and pretty narrow. So the question is although I'm breaking the law by being on the pavement I am infact causing much less danger to road users by not wallowing around at 5mph and causing everyone to slam on their brakes as the fly round the corner. If there was an alternative off road route i would always use that, but there is not. IF i saw a walker one day when doing this I would dismount and allow them to pass.

@matt07 - sounds pretty reasonable. Personally my recent experiences of attempting to get the police to enforce the law regarding motor vehicle use makes me much less inclined to worry about the letter of the law if I'm better off ignoring it. qwerty covered it up there - pretty much all the complaints I've seen about cyclists on pavements are of them going too fast and not giving way to pedestrians, if you go slowly and keep away from them most people don't have an issue.

matt07 - Member
With regards to pavements being footpaths I get that the law is the law, but, there are a couple of places that I ride mtb where a long windy hill climb on a road has a pavement next to it. I must have ridden there 40-50 times and never seen anyone walking on the pavement. The road is however quite busy, fast and pretty narrow. So the question is although I'm breaking the law by being on the pavement I am infact causing much less danger to road users by not wallowing around at 5mph and causing everyone to slam on their brakes as the fly round the corner. If there was an alternative off road route i would always use that, but there is not. IF i saw a walker one day when doing this I would dismount and allow them to pass.

Personally I cycle on pavements/footpaths/Anywhere all the time, it's accepted up here. There is no need to dismount, you just need to give way to the pedestrain.

The highway code should be changed to include a simple rule: the slower/smaller vehicle/person has the right of way(under 25 mph).

Include that, make people follow it, and our roads and pavements(or whatever you want to call them) will be a much happier place.

there's plenty of space for everyone if we'd all just chill and stop rushing about everywhere.

My best and favourite trails are footpaths, rarely meet anyone on them, whats not to like.
Even if it does make you look like a self harmer at this time of year.

matt07 - I wouldn't worry one iota if I was you, better alive than dead right

I recently found out the legal definition of "road" isn't actually as obvious as it seems - as I was fined for having a SORNed car parked on public land :/

According to what the nice man at the DVLA told me you can ride your bike on the pavement because that is the road. As is any public land. So, if I'm ever done for riding on the pavement I guess I'll be calling on DVLA as witness for the defence.

[quote=Rob Hilton ]According to what the nice man at the DVLA told me you can ride your bike on the pavement because that is the road. As is any public land.

I'd suggest that man at DVLA doesn't know what he's talking about, but actually I'm fairly sure it's you completely misinterpreting him.

Nope, he was right. As regards the legal definition of a road. And an anal bastard he was too.

While we're on that subject you can't be "fairly sure" 😛

I think you'll find there's a difference in the law between where you're not allowed to keep an untaxed car and where you are allowed to ride a bicycle 🙄 Hint: the former includes places where you're not allowed to drive a car.

Say what?

The point I was making is that the legal definition of "road" includes the pavement; ergo there is no such thing as a pavement - hence can't be illegal to ride a bike on.

I can't tell you my degree of surety in this matter, though.

[i]No, you're getting mixed up[/i]

Isn't the first time...

Thanks for the explanation 🙂

[quote=Rob Hilton ]I can't tell you my degree of surety in this matter, though.

I can help you with that if you like...

You still seem to be misunderstanding the fundamental point that the way something is defined for one law has nothing to do with how it is defined for a completely different law. I doubt the 1835 highways act makes much reference to any law on VED!