What an odd little country England is.
We're all odd in our own special ways Nobeer.
OP I would remind him of his duty to maintain the ROW and YOU will be suing if you get injured due to his lack of maintenance on HIS land.
convert - Member
So here then?
Yep that's it, with the great big No Cycling sign 😀
So it is a ROW. He can get bent, then. Wear a go pro, be polite. When he inevitably caves in to his passive-agressive confusion you can present him with the choice. Stop being a twunt or try his luck against a criminal prosecution for assault etc.
Yep that's it, with the great big No Cycling sign
Yep, but they're not cycling. And putting up a no cycling sign makes no difference to the status of the path. It merely signals bike-intolerance on the part of the landowner.
Yep that's it, with the great [u]advisory[/u] big No Cycling sign
FTFY
What an odd little country England is.
Racist.
I guess the issue in this person's head is that the public footpath I don't think squinting at the map leads anywhere legitimate to ride a bike. So is his issue you are pushing your bike up the public footpath or is it that he thinks you are doing so in order to hoon around somewhere (he believes) you have no right to?
Not convinced you can lay the putting up of that sign on the landowner either. At work we have a public footpath that skirts the grounds. As a community we put a big effort in and resurfaced it to make it all weather and bike friendly in the express interests of encouraging parents of the local primary school to ride with their kids to school (it pops out right next to it). For reasons I don't understand my employer was unable to get it changed to a bridleway or cycle path (when I have time I'll need to find out why) but were happy to allow people to ride on it. It even made the parish news letter with praise from the local vicar. Anyway a few months later those blue no cycling signs appeared on it - on my employers land but without their knowledge or permission. Turns out they were put up by the local rights of way officer after he got complaints from walkers and him looking at the Strava heat map! My employer took them down and lobbed them in the bin and they have not reappeared.
Yes that's the path. He owns the open fields up to the wooded section below the trig. So are we clear here that we are doing no wrong by pushing our bikes up that path. He was adamant he'd serve me a notice next time he saw me as his solicitor was "working on it".
And yes he's responsible for the signs, also the cctv signs which I find highly amusing.
[img] 
[/img]
Didn't read the case law links above but think there was a civil case in possibly hebden bridge that concluded that a bicycle wasn't a whatever the legalise is for accompanying item on a footpath .... so a civil trespass case is possible but damage would be minimal i guess depends if costs are awardable
And yes he's responsible for the signs, also the cctv signs which I find highly amusing.
Responsible in that he complained and the council/ ROW officer put them up or he put them up? Is the latter even a thing - where would you buy them?
He was adamant he'd serve me a notice next time he saw me as his solicitor was "working on it".
I would give him my name and address next time, just to make sure he wastes his time and money serving a "notice".
I'm struggling to see how someone could object to someone walking with their bike on a footpath.
Sounds like the only person benefitting from this would be the guy's solicitor, however I'd say the chances are that there isn't one. Some people love to back up their swivel eyed loony rants with threats of legal action! 😉
You might want to ask him if his CCTV complies with the info commissioners codes of practice...
Loon.
Ignore him.
Funnily enough I know the footpath officer for the area as I've had dealings with him at work over a bridleway we moved. He's a real stickler for details such as overgrown areas etc. Those steps at the bottom of the path are actually quite dangerous I think so I might give him a ring 😉
And yes he put the signs up.
Sounds like the only person benefitting from this would be the guy's solicitor, however I'd say the chances are that there isn't one. Some people love to back up their swivel eyed loony rants with threats of legal action!
my experience is that landowners often do have access to often crap legal advice at mates rates.. same golf clubs...same handshakes - but their solicitor won't have any real knowledge of ROW law .... but then again
Is taking your photo without your permission not an infringement of privacy laws or rights.
mountainman - Member
Is taking your photo without your permission not an infringement of privacy laws or rights.
No.
Not in a public place, like a legitimate prow.
There are better non-pushing ways up - as I am sure you know 😉
There is a bloke similar to that on way up to Crich Tower too.......have you met him yet? 😀
I'd continue to use the path if I were you and just ignore him. He'll probably die from the stress he's causing himself before long.
That path is a ballache to walk up never mind with a bike, surely it's just about as quick to go down to Black Rock car park area and use one of the multitude ways back up? If time is pressing then the trig point isn't really on the way to anywhere that you couldn't reach quicker without the aggro.
That guy was a muppet years ago and clearly hasn't changed (he used to give the Monday night Matlock CC ride the third degree) but it's a truly crap path!
Get loads of people to constantly ride it, then apply for a change of status to a bridleway because that's the main use.
In my experience where there's someone like this it's just because it goes right by their house. Full NIMBY stuff. One I often ride is a short link between bridleways and roads and only option is a brief footpath ending in nicely groomed gravel past a nice house. No cycling signs on that section but it's been ridden for decades and the state of the path is such that there's no issue sharing it. It's just that it goes past the nice house at the end I'm sure.
It also doesn't help with the ROW status in this country. Some people get in a huff because it says Public Footpath and see you riding along, but it can be a massive wide path with no issues to share it. Their only complaint is because of the 'footpath' label. Same path but marked bridleway or has signs allowing cycling and they'd be perfectly happy. They just like to kick off on what they think is the law.
To be honest some of the folk on the canal yesterday looked like they'd have a stand up fight with us for daring to ride on there. I don't get folk sometimes, we are genuinely always sound with people but some of them just hate us. Might try and get a good dozen of us to go up in there in the future.
Some people love to back up their swivel eyed loony rants with threats of legal action!
Yeah, you should see some of the emails we get.
Some people get in a huff because it says Public Footpath and see you riding along, but it can be a massive wide path with no issues to share it.
There's also the issue of damage to the path, depending on the surface.
Cougar - ModeratorÂ
There's also the issue of damage to the path, depending on the surface.
Mass trample by walkers boots in muddy conditions sure does make a lot of damage 😉
There are a number of shared paths I ride and the worst bits are pinch points and it's all footprints causing the mess. When it's drying out the tyres flatten a nice smooth channel through.
Not a patch on horses though. Many bridleways near me are totally unrideable or even walkable due to horses. Yet that's our ROW (sort of. Not all bridleways are bike ROW, but in general in our antiquated law bikes are considered the same rights as horses).
[quote=convert ]For reasons I don't understand my employer was unable to get it changed to a bridleway or cycle path (when I have time I'll need to find out why) but were happy to allow people to ride on it. It even made the parish news letter with praise from the local vicar. Anyway a few months later those blue no cycling signs appeared on it - on my employers land but without their knowledge or permission. Turns out they were put up by the local rights of way officer after he got complaints from walkers and him looking at the Strava heat map! My employer took them down and lobbed them in the bin and they have not reappeared.
The status of the path doesn't really matter, if the landowner has given permission for people to cycle, then they can cycle - it's nothing to do with anybody walking on the path. Surprised at the RoW officer putting up such signs, normally they're a bit more clued up on access law - how bizarre that he thinks it's reasonable to put up no cycling signs without consulting the landowner.
Does this not also smack of a bit of unreasonable behaviour on any cyclists part?
There is no where to go on that map that a cyclist could reasonably need to go. If its access to the other more ligitimate tracks than the road could be used. After all road has been used to get to the start of the RoW so that can't be an issue. Might I suspect that ones the pushing has been done most cyclists then get on and pedal.
I know it doesn't appeal to many here but the apparent common sense approach (bikes do no harm and the laws are silly) is irrelevant. The law is there for a reason and to question it is fine, nay encouraged , but there are ways to do this and those ways are not to suit individual desires. I would cause no harm what so ever riding my motorcycle up many a cheeky MTB track but of course that would be frowned up by many here. I do assume that all those encouraging cycling on a footpath would be happy with such actions.
Doubt it. Inded its funny how so many of those who spout "access for all, inluding my bike" are also keen to stop motorised transport.
OP. Check the laws and any local variations on it and apply them properly. Yo may be better off asking on the CUK site where opinion, as amuusing as it is, doesn't tend to get in the way of fact in these matter. If you can push legally then push and be polite about it. Don't get on the bike until you are back where you should legally be pedaling .
I would cause no harm what so ever riding my motorcycle up many a cheeky MTB track but of course that would be frowned up by many here. I do assume that all those encouraging cycling on a footpath would be happy with such actions.
You might be a very considerate rider, but whichever way you cut it, that's? a shit analogy and hardly relevant to the discussion.
Footpaths without no cycling signs are fair game, legally, as all the designation means is that you don't have the right to ride, not that riding is prohibited. If there's a no cycling sign (which the landowner is fully entitled to put up), you are trespassing if you ride it.
I'd judge on its merits. A nice downhill easily linked in with other riding? I'll have that. A shit climb with a load of hassle off a nutter? Hardly seems worth it to me. YMMV.
Some of the no cycling signs I see about I'm sure aren't put there by the landowner and even if they are some seem inconsistent with standard signs and probably have no legal status, especially those on a bridleway (okay in this case we're talking about a footpath).
Another one yesterday along a section of the NDW which is actually also part of a national cycle route, and farmer (possible land owner) has stuck up his own sign saying about it being a private road and while not denying bikes it says cyclists must get off and walk. Perfectly fine stretch of tarmac-ish road/path and no obvious signs that there'd be any conflict by riding through. Just it goes past this guy's farm house.
Thinking about it, there's another I remember some years ago which is a ROW that goes past someone's house, and they've put up gates to make it look like it's the entrance to a private garden. There were notices of an application to remove the ROW. I think it was actually a public footpath, wasn't sure, but I got off, open the gate and walked through their nice looking garden.
