A local country park (South Lanarkshire) has an information leaflet for the park which states that bikes are "NOT ALLOWED" on any of the trails.
My understanding is that following the Land reform (Scotland) Act 2004 there is no hindrance to cyclists riding off road provided they follow the guidance for giving consideration to other outdoors users (giving way to walkers, avoiding areas which are eroded etc). I also believe that for the local authority to put signs up saying no cycling or wording their leaflet as above flies in the face of the legislation (and is possibly illegal?)
It's not a great place to ride but it's handy.
Am I wrong or can anyone enlighten me?
It would be possible to have bylaws I think that could ban bikes - but unlikely. It would also depend on the park to some extent - is it gardens or open land? Or the sign may well be a leftover from before the 2004 act.
There is a lot of stuff like this that would need to be tested in court and ultimately thats the only way to be sure. Several of the Edinburgh parks removed no cycling signs in 2004.
Dunno for sure.
Chatelherault?
Duggie S - Nope - Calderglen.
TJ - It's a country park - not gardens, so open land - There are definitely no byelaws in force.
Ride it!
Nick - there is no way they can stop you riding there as long as you are doing so 'responsibly'. Have you found anything worthwhile up there - I tried once a few yrs ago and was dissapointed
Unless they have some sort of exemption, I believe it's an offence to try to deny access rights.
No doubt an expert will be along shortly.
Contact your local council's Access officer.
They'll know for sure and will have a quiet word to ensure that it doesn't happen again.
(be nice to them - they're a lovely bunch doing a tricky job)
I think the answer is in the "useful information" section.
[url] http://www.southlanarkshire.gov.uk/portal/page/portal/SLC_PUBLICDOCUMENTS/Comm/COMM_422_Calderglen_CPTrails.pdf [/url]
Exempt under land set aside for a specific purpose - keep off them.
kevonakona - Member
I think the answer is in the "useful information" section.
If it is, then I'm failing to see it.
Either way I've given you that answer.
Goan - Premier MemberExempt under land set aside for a specific purpose - keep off them.
Possible but I doubt it. What purpose? What makes you say that?
I think more likely its a leftover from before the act and no one has thought about it since
They are specific nature trails. Designed for kids to walk round with their families.
Hmm - I see the point but I doubt its legality. Depends on the trails really and I don't know them. I am not sure they have the right to do this but ultimately a court would have to decide. It might be fair enough it might not
They do have the right to do it. Same as with football pitches, golf courses and ironically mtb trails.
Goan - yes but its not a catch all and that is stretching the limits of what the act means a long way. But a court decision is the only way to know for sure. A marginal case IMO
You cannot exclude bicycle access on golf courses for example.
But why is it a marginal case? And why does it need to go to court before selfish bikers stay clear of it?
Oi Teej..Answer your email 🙂
No expert BUT:
We do exclude public from our 'open grounds' at work, as public access to a place for children (an outdoor centre) is 'spoiling our enjoyment' (i.e. brings issues of child protection/stranger danger) as I believe it is phrased in the access law...
I also remember reading a case where a couple provided a walking trail on their land, which was then used by local horseriders, trashing the trail they built. They 'banned' horses, local riding club went to court and the judge agreed that they were not using the land responsibly, and again were 'spoiling the enjoyment' of the land for the owners and other users. Can't find the link though, sorry....
BUT, generally I would take access as access....
I've lived in EK for 5 yrs now, and have biked the trail from Calderwood to the main part of the park and back many times, passed many people, and not been challenged by anyone. I think it's all down to how you approach people.... pull in and wait for dogs to pass, smile and talk etc...
Personally, Cathkin is now my local trail when I can't be bothered to travel anywhere, less dog poop...
The case you refer to Matt was about horses damaging paths - not safety as the claimed issue is here. The horse riders lost the case.
Goan - its clearly marginal thus needs a court case to settle for sure. Many "nature trails" exist with no cycling ban. Banning on safety grounds is dubious anyway. The whole issue of "land set aside for a specific purpose" does not have enough case law to know what happens in the grey areas. As far as I am aware no cases have been brought under it.
TJ - How about instead of saying it's marginal you explain why? There is legislation in place - why should legislation always need to be tested in court before people start being reasonable and stop being selfish? There isn't enough money available to test everything...
Why is it marginal - . I don't know these trails in question - do you?
I know of many "nature trails" specifically laid out for that purpose" that are shared with bikes. I know of no walking trail that has an exclusion in this way although it is theoretically possible to do so but without precedent there is no way of knowing.
allowing all "nature trails" to ban bikes would be clearly and obviously against the ethos of the land reform act.
Do you know these trails?
The trails in question aren't great - I think my issue is with the local authority and their perceived "chancer" status i.e. hoping by saying that bikes aren't allowed, that people will go along with it, with the L.A. having either no knowledge, misguided knowledge or full knowledge (don't know which is more irritating) that they have no legal right to do so.
It would be nice to know that on the occasion I decided to responsibly exercise my right (if this indeed is a right - still don't know) to cycle in the area in question(and upon the pointing out of my errant ways by some confused gasbag) to be fully conversant with my right to be there.
A similar situation exists at nearby Langlands Moss where "No Cycling" signs abound. There is just something about them which smacks to me of there being no legality in the signs other than a hope/wish of a local authority hostile to off road biking in that area.
While I'm on the subject the Local Authority in question have a woeful record of providing/supporting off road cycling facilities in general. Next door neighbours in Glasgow have made modest but commendable efforts at Pollok Park and Cathkin Braes.
The posts above have been helpful and I appreciate the views of all!
BTW IainC - still up for a jaunt over the holidays? Cathkin Braes? (Not Calderglen - it's sh*te 😉 )
BTW Kevonakona
Ta for the link - this is the very leaflet in question.
Quote from Page 3 - "For the safety of all visitors, cycling is not allowed on the trails".
Hmmmm - seems a bit fishy to me.
Still, it doesn't exactly sound unreasonable. Leaving the law aside for a moment, if they're purpose built family nature trails it's probably a good idea to stay off them anyway.
Northwind - very true. Just want to know though...
Nick - for sure. I'll be doing a Mugdock tomorrow night with club. busy thereafter till 29/30th so will drop you a mail/text. Cathkin is good when it's frozen !
Dear all
Response from South Lanrkshire Council below re this issue...
"Dear Mr Quinn, You are quite correct in your interpretation of the Land Reform Act and SOAC and so are free to cycle the trails at Calderglen and Langlands Moss so long as done responsibly. A review of signage and management rules on council owned sites is currently underway but unfortunately there are a number of these sites which still have non-compliant signage which needs to be rectified. In some situations signs prohibiting cycling had been erected after accidents involving cyclists and walkers. We are working on guidance for path users so such incidents can be minimised. I hope that this information is satisfactory."
Result! 😀
Interesting.
So the access rights do apply. There is definitely a point tho at which access becomes unreasonable cos the path is unsuitable and has too many walkers on it.
There is definitely a point tho at which access becomes unreasonable cos the path is unsuitable and has too many walkers on it.
Agreed, in the same way that access to designated mtb trails for walkers becomes unreasonable due to volume of cyclists!
Always a challenge to find a happy medium!
Great. All we need now is a response from Goan explaining that South Lanarkshire Council have got it all wrong.
When I lived in Hamilton I questioned one of the staff at Chatelherault about the no cycling signs there. I was told (off the record) that they knew the signs needed to be removed but they didn't have the enough funds to actually remove them!!!