[Closed] RoW question - is pushing or carrying your bike on a footpath legal?

Land laws are insane, archaic leftovers of feudalism, presided over by knobs in 'their' countryside. Just push your bike on it everyday to piss him off.

I can understand people not wanting the public walking all over their fields and letting animals out of gates etc, hence I can see the landowners points in that respect, though obviously they bought the land with those paths already through it and need to accept that). I can't see the argument against one particular type of (non-motorised) transport though, that seems odd. English RoW laws are a bit odd and unhelpful, but I really don't think scotland is THAT much different, I've come across dozens of "private land, keep out" signs around simply fields and lochs, though as yet I've not been chased, I can't see it being long before I do.

They have no right to chase you in Scotland, I think thats the key difference. Although I think there are some restrictions on open mountainsides here and there due to Deer stalking seasons and the like, although Ive never came across any restrictions or problems. In Scotland, there seems to be more of a "lets get along" attitude, although you may get the odd grunt from walkers. Ive had much more problems, and abuse from pedestrians in Glasgow on my commute, where the cycle path and pavement are shared.

but I really don't think scotland is THAT much different, I've come across dozens of "private land, keep out" signs around simply fields and lochs

Hangovers from prior to the Land Reform Act, and you can safely ignore them... (I believe)

scottyjohn - yeah, you can understand restrictions when people are out shooting I suppose! I agree it seems to be more "getting along" in attitude, as an alien here i'm programmed to respond to "private" signs as any Englishman would - "can I sneak through without being caught?" 🙂

Hangovers from prior to the Land Reform Act, and you can safely ignore them... (I believe)

They actually look like new signs, up on the road out towards carron valley there's a little loch, I was considering popping the kites up and trying to surf on it but it feels incredibly "wrong" somehow - years of prohibition!

lol Id go for it! Your not a motorised water craft so no harm no foul! Plus you could say that it doesnt say "NO KITESURFERS" so you didnt know 😆

mansonsoul - Member
Land laws are insane, archaic leftovers of feudalism, presided over by knobs in 'their' countryside. Just push your bike on it everyday to piss him off.

Tell him you want the same freedoms as in Scotland and your vote depends on it. You should not be prepared to be a feudal serf any more.

coffeeking - Member
...but I really don't think scotland is THAT much different, I've come across dozens of "private land, keep out" signs around simply fields and lochs, though as yet I've not been chased, I can't see it being long before I do.

Probably on land owned by wealthy English people.

The signs can and should be ignored if they are infringing on your right of access. Report illegal signs to your local council. Trying to prevent lawful access can result in prosecution in Scotland, and if anyone tried it on me, I would be ensuring that happened.

lol Id go for it! Your not a motorised water craft so no harm no foul! Plus you could say that it doesnt say "NO KITESURFERS" so you didnt know

One day I'll pluck up the 'nads!

Probably on land owned by wealthy English people.

The signs can and should be ignored if they are infringing on your right of access. Report illegal signs to your local council. Trying to prevent lawful access can result in prosecution in Scotland, and if anyone tried it on me, I would be making sure that happened.

Noted, I'll do it when I collect more info!

i suggest that we start quoting arcane laws when hassled by walkers,

for example;

grumpy walkist: 'you're not allowed to ride a bike on here'

cyclist: 'why not?'

grumpy walkist: 'it's a footpath'

cyclist: 'it's quite clear, that section 72 of the highways act - 1835, only applies to footpaths running along the side of a road'

etc.

RKK01 sorry yes you are right you could meet a horse on a footpath but in my reply I was not referring to a chance encounter with a ridden horse tractor or mx bike on the same land that the path ran through that was there with the landowners consent. I referred to the likely hood / expectation of one walking member of the public not encountering another member of the public on horseback.

In AH Whiles case the walker has no right to point out to anyone exercising other use without rights it is a matter for the landowner, who in fact maybe, unknown to the walker, completely happy to see other users on the path although neither broadcasts the fact nor realises if they take no effort to control it a public right may possibly be created. This is fundamentally how the 20 year principle in the Highways act is triggered. I get regular complaints from walkers ringing up to complain that their walk on a footpath was ruined by the appearance of another user who should have been there. With as much tact as possible I try to explain that the decision as to applying tolerance or control over who uses land that is crossed by a public path rests with the landowner not the council or other users.

I do not condone anybody riding on what are clearly designated and intended to be only footpaths other than as an emergency exit from hostile conditions in the mountains, however we all know there are many tracks crossing the mountains that old records and physical appearance tells you it is more than a footpath, in that situation where you sincerely believe your right exists, you have a right to exercise it irrespective of what the definitive map says although you should be able to offer some proof to support your contention, the only problem is whether anyone will intervene on your behalf if that use is challenged by the landowner until the mistake is corrected on the definitive map.

People like Byways and Bridleways Trust I find is usually a far better source for highway law for higher rights users than mtb or 4x4 forums,

Max Headset - Thanks, that response sits very well with my own understanding. As you say (and I alluded), often it is walkers who complain about other users, and not the landowner or their agent.

Many of the trails where I ride are footpaths, and I accept I have no protected legal right to ride them. That said, I have previously asked at least one of the local landowners and he has been unconcerned about mtb use - mainly because the trails are old mountain / forest roads and the official designation doesn't really match with the use made by the local community (especially horse riders). If asked to leave by a landowner I would.

Gritty - not sure if we can help but you're welcome to ask for help on the SingletrAction.org.uk website.

Been shoutted at a few times myself, never much fun 😉

Byways and Bridleways Trust probably a good port of call.

Tim aka Cheeeky Monkey aka SingletrAction Chair.

take your pram on the footpath and if challenged OWN em with it

take your pram on the footpath and if challenged OWN em with it

ride where you like. its legal to walk on a footpath, but that is different from it being illegal to ride on one. claim you're ensuring 'prior use'. when in doubt, shrug shoulders

Do you feel we are pushing it regards ROW.
On my own patch I've become quite Bolshie about it. I use footpaths because I know that if the landowners wanted to carry out more felling then the paths would disapear overnight, so they can't be that special.
I also believe that walkers and cyclists can co exist quite nicely, and whilst horse riders are accepted even where they shouldn't be they do leave a trail of damage as do MXers and 4X4ists.
Though this is my own opinion based on an area I know well.

I also respect the land I'm on i.e I was huffing and puffing at a horse rider that rode along the side of a well trodden path throwing up clumps of grass that has struggled to get a foothold in the sand over the last few years. To me that's more important that actual ROW.

I have had a very prompt, but not very encouraging, response from Bradford's RoW Officer which I will post in due course.

In the meantime, thanks for all the supportive and informative comments. It was quite a tough weekend, partly as a result of this confrontation, and you've all been helpful in allowing me to vent if nothing else!

Cheers

buy a hovercraft.

Sheffield council have passed a bylaw saying you can't push a bike on a footpath

oldgit - no, not pushing hard enough

track = row = footpath, bridleway, RUPP, BOAT, Restricted Byway, Byway (and whatever else they're called now).

ramblers have 100%+ (yes 100%plus) all tracks PLUS right 2 roam, plus coast path when it turns up, national paparks, nat trust etc etc etc.

bicycles/horses - 21%ish (*mtb trail parks a nice bonus)

vehicles 3%ish (down from 5%)

I consider the Sheffield Council thing truly worrying as councils tend to flock like sheep in the same direction (and I like making up cicular off road routes). IMHO they should upgrade all footpaths except certain honey pot etc ones (ie create restricted footpaths, disallow bikes on them, allow bikes on footpaths - most footpaths not being restricted).

Write to your MP (faxyourmp.com) and local council.

Although we like to assume we've moved on, the problem with this countries land access laws are they start with the assumption that all land belongs to the monarch. Any access to any land really is a grant of the monarch.

The land laws need to be rewrote the other ways round. We need to start from the assumption that everyone (at least on foot has access to all land. Exceptions due to privacy farming industry then need to created.

So laws need to be passed to restrict land access rather than the current system where generally laws have to passed to grant access to land.

grittyshaker - Member

Was physically confronted and pushed in the chest when I attempted to cross the stile part way across.

That's assault isn't it?

[i]Sheffield council have passed a bylaw saying you can't push a bike on a footpath [/i]

What!

http://www.sheffield.gov.uk/roads-and-transport/cycling-and-walking-and-prow/prow/definitive-map

When they say footpath, do they also mean pavement?

I wonder what effect EU law has on this?

I wonder if you could get your bike classified as a motability scooter then you could ride it on footpaths.

If you read the Sheffield link it is just explaining the law as it is, they have no additional legal powers.

they should upgrade all footpaths except certain honey pot etc ones (ie create restricted footpaths, disallow bikes on them, allow bikes on footpaths - most footpaths not being restricted).

Problem is that to add rights to a right of way it is not simply a matter of posting a notice in a newspaper and telling everyone to get out and use them. The EU Human Rights legislation is quite specific on what private property owners can expect from the threat of authorities imposing actions reducing their enjoyment of their property. In order to utilise legal powers the council would have to show an actual public benefit would arise for a large segment of society before it could raise a paths status. Having made the order the Council would be obliged to compensate the landowners for any loss the act causes them. Most often this is the loss in value land suffers from when additional public rights are created that means more access by the public results in less privacy.

Experience shows that where a landowner is not in agreement with increase of rights they will fight to the death for the highest level of compensation. Figures of £5000 per path are not usual but at the IMBA conferance a few years ago the Pennine Bridleway Project Officer was showing up to £20k was being given to landowners just to secure a hundred yards of bridleway.

The Scottish situation arose because its land ownership system had developed from historical Scottish practises and was not based on the feudal system introduced in England and imposed on Wales by William the Bastard and his Norman invaders. Without a large scale compensatory payment to all owners of land Scottish Access rights will be restricted to Scotland. Writing to MP's or Councils is just a waste of stamps and does little, you would be better stumping up some cash joining IMBA and let them use the money to get the rights mess sorted south of the scottish border

you would be better stumping up some cash joining IMBA and let them use the money to get the rights mess sorted south of the scottish border

Can't help but feel that increased public access should be tied into the conditions relating to farm/land EU subsidies.

Maybe it's time for a mass trespass?

If walkers hadn't done this in the past they would still have very little access to the countryside afaik.

We need to stop fannying around, Direct Action is the only approach that will work:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_trespass_of_Kinder_Scout

Rich - Member
Maybe it's time for a mass trespass?
If walkers hadn't done this in the past they would still have very little access to the countryside afaik.

Worked for the Ramblers in 1932.

So where would be the best place be for a mass "MTB Trespass" - Kinder Scout again or maybe Harden Moor?

Smart thinking Batman, a quick study of a history of the countryside access movement will show that before the ramblers formed a movement in the early 1930's organisations like the Peaks Footpath Society had been campaigning for 50 or more years for access to no avail, and it was not the ramblers themselves but a quasi communist group that organised the process so dont expect Captain Flasheart to come along if you do the same.. It took nearly another 20 -30 years for the eventual change required in law to take place and it was no doubt part because of the labour victory after the WW2, had the Tories got in they would have chummied along with their landowning chums.. trundle off up to Kinder Scout today they wil lhave some neat law to lock up you all up under the Tory laws aimed at eradicating travellers, road protestors and raves.. we'll come and visit al lthe martyrs in what ever gaol you find yourself

So, here's what my local RoW officer said:

"Many thanks for your recent email, please note below my comments on this matter.

A local landowner recently contacted the Councils Rights of Way Section regarding problems he was having with people cycling on a public footpath he has crossing his land. The landowner informs me that he has no issue with pedestrians legitimately using the public footpath but that he objects to the route being used by cyclists (including pushing/carrying).

The landowner has erected signs in an attempt to clarify the status of the footpath and has asked if the Council can assist him by formally signing the route in question as a public footpath. Signs the landowner originally put up have been vandalised but I have been informed that his new signs have included the contact details for the Councils Countryside and Rights of Way Section. The Council will formally sign the route as a public footpath and will clarify signage on an alternative permissive bridleway route in the area in due course.

The route in question is recorded on the areas Definitive Map as being a public footpath as it crosses land he controls. As a public footpath the route is open to pedestrian users only. A cyclist who rides on a footpath commits trespass against the holder of the land over which the path runs. Such action would be a civil matter between the cyclist and the landowner and the landowner may use 'reasonable force ' to compel a trespasser to leave, but not more than is reasonably necessary.

[u]With regards pushing/carrying cycles on a public footpath this appears to be a somewhat grey area of the law. Generally we would comment that a bicycle is not seen as a natural accompaniment of a user of a footpath, and that to push (or carry) one along a footpath is therefore to commit trespass against the landowner. [/u]Generally to take a pram, pushchair or wheelchair (if practical) and to take a dog (on a lead or under close control) are classed as being natural accompaniments. We do have powers under the Road Traffic Regulations Act 1984 to make regulation orders and bylaws to make the offence a criminal act but this is not something we have yet considered.

[u]As far as I am aware the 'natural accompaniment' clause has not been tested by case law but I am aware of the Crank v Brooks case and other similar judgements that appear to indicate that pushing a cycle on a pedestrian facility is being regarded as a pedestrian.[/u]

As things stand the route is recorded as a public footpath and it is unlikely knowing the sites history that additional rights have been gained (through use as this landowner and the previous owner appear to have challenged most cycle users). We have asked the landowner if he would be willing to allow the route to be used by cyclists/horse riders, but he has indicated that such use would conflict with his own use of the land.

I trust the above information is of use but please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of further assistance in this matter.

Regards

Darren Hinchliffe

Rights of Way Officer"

In summary, CBMDC support the position of the landowner in restricting all access to this footpath involving bikes; ridden (fair enough), pushed or carried. It seems, as alluded to by mAx_hEadSet, that the council are far more concerned at the compensation that may be payable to the landowner for erosion of their property rights than the legitimate dismay of a reasonable majority at CBDMC making this interpretation of the law. This, to me, is especially disappointing as Mr Hinchliffe makes specific reference to case law that regards people pushing bikes as pedestrians. A position that seems incompatible with CBMDC's interpretation.

I have written to Mr Hinchliffe expressing my dismay and to ask clarification on the circumstances under which it would be "generally" OK to push or carry a bike on a footpath. In this instance, other than for the objection of the landowner, it would seem like a prime candidate for exemption from this restriction.

In the meantime, loathe as I am to advise bikers to avoid this area, I feel that for anyone to attempt to visit this location with a bike is to risk injury from the landowner who will make strenuous physical efforts to prevent people from pushing or carrying their bikes along this public footpath. Go there at your own risk.

Report the landowner to the police for assault. Pushing you in the chest isn't reasonable force to get you to leave, as has already been pointed out that clause only applies if you were actively refusing to depart anyway...

Shame the ROW officer didn't have anything to say about that...

For the record - I did refuse to leave and the landowner pushed me in the chest as I attempted to carry my bike past him.

Surely the answer is for lots of people to go up there and carry their bikes across the footpath. Not all at once, but separately. If he is set on assaulting anybody doing so, and all of these individual incidents get reported to the police then surely that is sufficient evidence to get an injunction keeping him away from that footpath!

what is the position with 'landowner or an appointed factor thereof' (or whatever it is) -ie anybody can say this when challenging you - but can you argue that without some form of identication etc that you could ignore them ?

As far as I can see the crank/brooks case was 1980, it would have to be a council that took it further as the legal system costs are beyond the individual people who fund it - mind you if another case reversed that decision that would be pretty serious .........

Although I previously posted differently, I don't think a "mass trespass" would achieve anything other than getting us a bad rep.

There have also been some posts about arguing the intracacies of the law with the landowner, defeating him with our unassailable logic. However my experience at this location was that a violent shove in the chest (reasonable force in ejecting a trespasser, I guess) proved to be pretty much the final word on the matter.

However my experience at this location was that a violent shove in the chest (reasonable force in ejecting a trespasser, I guess)

It is clearly difficult without the kind of knowledge that either Grittyshaker or the rights of way officer to adequately comment on this matter. The letter posted seems a fair statement of fact, indicating what options and courses of action are open to the council. If the route has always been a footpath and only a recent recreational need has caused use to happen then what he is saying is largely correct. The only area of hope would be in identifying evidence to show that when the path was first recorded as a footpath a mistake was made and higher rights had existed but were not known about or had been disregarded.

The issue of natural accompaniment is one that will take years to solve, it is unlikely any government will try to establish the matter through drafting legislation. The current case law is of low standing and there is contradictory case law. In order to get better case law will require two opposing parties willing to enter a legal dispute and who ever looses to have the nerve and money to take the matter to an appeal. Traditionally with appeal cases such as Rubenstein, Trevelyan and Godmanchester the appeal has been of such an important nature to walkers that the Ramblers Association are pushy enough and can see enough benefit to be willing to invest their limited funds in pursuing an appeal even knowing it could be lost.

For now the Ramblers seem willing to tolerate the uncertainty the meaning of natural accompaniment allows them and until walkers rights are seriously threatened by a restriction they will not be looking for a court fight for fear of loosing and getting a hostile decision setting them back. Cycling Organisations are notoriously absent from access based caselaw, which is unlikely to change given the increased costs of pursuing and particularly loosing appeals.

I think the most obvious thing threads like this continue to prove to me is that simply to ensure that riders have even a fundamental understanding of rights of way law above that needed by SFB, all the MTB magazines like ST should run more in depth serial features raising awareness of not only the law but also looking at how strategies for riders lobbying for better access could be more effectively managed and encouraging cyclists that spending to fund organisations that can help them get access laws favourably changed is as important as the thought of shelling out 3 times the amount you need to on a bottom bracket or headset with a sexy name on it.

My final position is that, given the grey area that exists around "natural accompaniment", my local authority have decided to protect the obscure interests of an individual rather than the reasonable interests of pedestrians pushing or carrying bikes. It looks so much like a decision could be argued either way and in this instance the local authority should have sought to protect the interests of a relatively harmless majority, particularly where so little harm can be demonstrated, where the footpath links two bridleways and where there is evidence that the path has previously been used by carriages (it has a gate, albeit always locked, at each end). The local authority have made me a trespasser in this case when they need not have done so.

From the top of my soapbox it looks a little like caving in to an assertive personality.

I won't be pressing charges for assault but I'll know where not to go for riding lessons or any other service the landowner might offer. I also know that I'm not the sort of person to push a much smaller person in the chest for wheeling their bike along a footpath to no-one's detriment. The landowner probably knows that he'll never entirely stop cyclists pushing their bikes on this footpath. I hope, for his sake, he's happy in sustaining such ill temper.

I'd advise all cyclists to get involved locally and nationally in access issues and to raise access with their local and national politicians this election time. Access laws, in England, are a hangover from the feudal system. They make serfs of the majority of reasonable people. It's time we moved on.

In the meantime, please take care at this location. It only takes a lapse of judgement on the landowner's part and people could be hurt.

grittyshaker - Member
My final position is that, given the grey area that exists around "natural accompaniment", my local authority have decided to protect the [b]obscure interests of an individual[/b] rather than the reasonable interests of pedestrians pushing or carrying bikes.

From the top of my soapbox it looks a little like caving in to an assertive personality.

I won't be pressing charges for assault but I'll know where not to go for riding lessons or any other service the landowner might offer.

I'd advise all cyclists to get involved locally and nationally in access issues and to raise access with their local and national politicians this election time. Access laws, in England, are a hangover from the feudal system. They make serfs of the majority of reasonable people. It's time we moved on.

In the meantime, please take care at this location. It only takes a lapse of judgement on the landowner's part and people could be hurt

The reasons I'm not taking this further with the police are:

1 - that the landowner is supported in their reasoning by the judgement of the local RoW. Both these bodies would hold that I was trespassing, had refused to leave, and that reasonable force was therefore justified.

2 - this was the first of two incidents that same day. The second involved a motorist who, through an appalling right turn manouvre, forced me to take evading action during which my bike contacted his car. The halfwit pieshop then leapt out of his car and threatened to "f'ing flatten" me.

Both these incidents shook me up somewhat and I have rather a lot on my plate at present with other matters. Sometimes it seems better just to let things go.

I am still in communication with the RoW officer though and I hope to get an explanation as to why the council has made the interpretation that they have in this situation.

I really do think, at the very least that this 'pushing' incident should be reported to the police. At least it is recorded and logged on the system. Anybody else experiencing the same sort of behaviour should also do the same. Sooner or later the police will have to pay a visit.
Don't ring 999. Call West Yorks police on 0845 6060606.

Just trying to add some common sense to this (which may be impossible with some idiots), but what was his actual objection to bikes passing along a 200m stretch of his land? Is it possible to do harm by carrying a bike on your shoulder and walking as opposed to weighing 30lbs more and not having a bike with you? Did he reason his argument?

Would it be worth contacting this bloke in a mature letter and trying to open discussions with him without him wanting or being able to hit/push someone?