Riding in Surrey last weekend we were climbing on the banks at the side of a narrow heavily sunken bridleway – super soft and sandy at the bottom where the horses had been. We were told off by a guy who was walking his dog, along the same bank that we were!

Bridleway vs footpath is a bit of a moot point on the Surrey Hills where much of the riding, and walking, is on paths that aren’t on the map. When you meet someone walking up a clearly ‘built’ cheeky trail with their dog who’s really in the wrong?

Not sure that, legally, walkers are not allowed on trail centre trails anyway?

And many trail centres also have a network of dedicated walker trails where bikes are not permitted.

Bikes have permissive access to certain things at trail centres. This is at the land owners discretion. On private land permissive access for walking / horse riding would be at the land owners discretion (outside of a public right of way). Other things apply in Scotland.

If the land is dedicated under the countryside and rights of way act (so any FC land) then walkers are legally entitled to go anywhere; that includes bike trails.

As an aside; I guess it depends who you speak to as wether the Scottish access model is successful and problem free.

I avoid footpaths where practically possibly and mostly agree with trail wagget. However, if a short section of FP is the only way of avoiding a busy road or long detour I go for it, especially if it’s on a farm track. If there are people around I walk.

I don’t like it and want change but try to respect the rules.

Today I got irritated- bridleway running up to a Woodland Trust site with a massive path continuing through, which I assumed allowed cycling (nothing on the WT website to say otherwise, and they are nice, right?). Nope. Situations like this seem stupid.

Also, regarding the law, would it also be the case there is no right to take a wheel chair on a FP?

Legally you can to take a wheelchair anywhere you can access on foot iirc.

Practically you’ll be sat in the car park unable to get past the gate / stile.

A problem exacerbated by land owners putting these things in and not being prepared to make them accessible because they get fed up of mountain bikes / horses / motor vehicles going where they shouldn’t.

Open access to cyclists and work on users getting along and being courteous would be a lot more beneficial all round.

It would help if the Ramblers Assoc. didn’t object by reflex every time somebody tries to get bridleway rights recorded over footpaths.

As an aside; I guess it depends who you speak to as wether the Scottish access model is successful and problem free.

Codification of access law in Scotland was contained in the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003. The act was reviewed in 2016 and no changes were made to access arrangements.

Successful? – yes.

Problem free? – largely yes. I can think of a few exceptions (camping on Lomondside,  a couple of access disagreements), but these are very much in the minority and are not specific to cycling.

Today I heard something that might be interesting to the thread.
On the Malvern Hills they have recently opened three waymarked routes for cyclists. Someone told me today that “they” ( not sure who this is, council?) Are handing out on the spot fines of £80 to anyone caught riding anywhere that is not part of one of these routes.

So, first off. Is this true? Anyone else heard this?
Second, how enforceable are the fines?

Successful? – yes.

What does success mean in that context?

Second, how enforceable are the fines?

Completely, it would appear (somewhat to my surprise). See Malvern Hill Trust Bylaws, 8(b) says you can only cycle on a bridleway, or where they say, and 41 says you can be fined up to Level 2 on the standard scale, which is £500.

It’s a great topic to discuss and one of which will stir some strong opinions.
Firstly dispite what has been posted a few pages back the law is outdated .
So outdated that there is little clarity for the users ie riders walkers etc on what is legal and what isn’t legal.
After all who can 100% hold there hand up and say they adhere to every single speed limit at all times in there cars, yet in this scenario the law is flounced without such consciousness.
Then the law on rights of way is so outdated that the landowner even if they wanted too would struggle to ever get a case to court to stop bikes or anyone they didn’t want on there land .it’s hard enough getting our local council to remove gypsies from the local supermarket carpark.

I personally am of the thinking that this world was given to us all to enjoy responsibly and explore.
I’m not prepared to flout someone’s personal land willy nilly but I’m more than happy to share a footpath or ride land that is imo the right of the human race to access and enjoy .
Untill such time that the world has addressed a degree more on the more important matters of terrorism\mp,s stealing public money to use on large houses they sometimes may or may not stay in etc etc then I say let’s carry on as we are with the odd misery guts having a moan or indeed the odd dick on a bike giving the rest of us a bad name .

I often tell the red faced angry brigade that I also trespassed in Afghanistan to save 3 of my colleagues ,I also disobeyed direct orders to save myself and the remaining crew instead of heading my crew into direct gun fire to save 3 lives .
I was told I could be court martial but Instead 12 months later I was awarded the military cross .
I’ve since met the family of the people my crew helped save and I don,t regret breaking the law ,which is what I was doing.
2 months after receiving the military cross I left the forces disillusioned.

My opinion isn’t right .it isn’t wrong either it’s simply my opinion.
As of which last time I checked we are all entitled too.

Good god. That’s the Malvern knocked off the list of places to spend a weekend.

I see lots of signs saying no dogshit, fine £500. I also see lots of dogshit. I don’t see anyone dishing out little pieces of paper.

You expect the dog owners to wipe their pooches arses too?

Some of you might know that I’ve been heavily involved in MTB advocacy for some years both as @KoftheP and on PDMTB’s committee. It’s a slog.

We all know there’s not enough of the trail network for us to ride and we all know that at times people will ride footpaths. There’s always a demand then for a trail centre in the peak, but again in the next breath we want it unspoilt. You can’t ride where you want, or even build a trail and also have it unspoilt. Do we want to be hounded into quarantined spaces or do we want open access? Yes, it’s not that binary an argument but it has been suggested by anti-MTB groups recently.

There’s a real challenge in all of this. We are making some amazing strides forward in changing things for the better for mountain biking for the wider MTB community – those who perhaps don’t know the rules and regs or perhaps don’t have the desire to get into a debate – but we seem reluctant to let go of some perceived ‘rebellious’ badge that we never really had in the first place. At times we’re our own worst enemy. Anti-mountain bike groups don’t have to dig deep to find evidence to use against us in debates they have with people with the power to open up more access but none of the actual facts. I’ve seen strava used against us by landowners who went as far as to find out where the riders lived.

We’ve had some real debates about this at PDMTB. There’s no real right answer to it that will suit everyone I don’t think.

At the end of the day, IMHO it’s don’t be a dick. If something’s sensitive and riding it will undermine the work of groups which could improve access, don’t ride it. That means that at times we come across all trail policey – but ‘good’ behaviour/responsible riding has led to improved access.

Here’s what we said online about it

What on Earth is cheeky riding?

and my experience of riding a path which is nonsensically designated as footpath near me.

“You’re just a nuisance”

When landowners start using permissive access as a stick to beat cyclists with I lose interest in retaining their “goodwill”. We have a local landowner with a terrible reputation for refusing access (even where it legally existed) who allowed a charity event to use some tracks. The next thing we hear from the organisers is that they are threatening to withdraw permission because people rode the same tracks at other times. Therefore the charity would not get the money. I’m all for advocacy and keeping channels of communication open, but being a dick can apply just as much to landowners as users.

I ride wherever I think I can get away with, I can’t be doing with individuals or organisations saying they have exclusive rights to control massive tracts of land.
Having said that, I strongly subscribe to the ‘don’t be a dick’ philosophy and try to be a good ambassador for mtbing when it comes to other users and farmland in use gets special consideration.

I do wonder if the best outcome in all of this is to keep the status quo. As it stands, I can and will ride most of the trails around me, but as many people have said already there’s a level of courtesy and common sense required. A lot of the footpaths near me (Eastern Peak) are incredibly busy at times but fine at others. The fact that it’s “cheeky” means riders are generally polite to the point of being obsequious (I know I am), and forethought is mandatory. Which is no bad thing.

If riding on footpaths is legally enshrined then the situation changes, and potentially you have a bunch of entitled, inexperienced riders taking the footpaths without really thinking about whether they’re doing damage/upsetting people.

So while of course the current access right laws are nonsense, would a change in the law even be good for us? I’m not sure.

So while of course the current access right laws are nonsense, would a change in the law even be good for us? I’m not sure.

If only there was another country very close by that you could look at to see how freedom of access might operate in practice.

I rode thee full Grims Ditch from Nuffield down to Wallingford yesterday. Funnily enough i was 2nd out of 7 STW Strava group members, so shows that plenty of others don’t mind a cheeky footpath too. 50% of the route is Footpath, 50% is allowed. I saw 3-4 walkers and we chatted happily through my panting.
It’s one of/the best downhill for miles and miles, took me 17mins, with barely any uphill. I don’t feel any guilt at all.

On the Isle of Wight there is very little distinction in practice between cheeky/ultra-cheeky/non-cheeky. It’s fairly underpopulated by the standards of the south east and most of the trails are empty most of the time. In my experience everybody rides everything. Everybody walks everything, whether it is demarcated by the right type of line on the map or not. 99.99% of trail users and land owners are cool about it.

Some trails, usually on National Trust-owned land, are absolutely festooned with NO CYCLING signs and any mountain bikers I know generally give those a wide berth.

There are one or two notorious individuals in one or two spots who give you bother but for the most part it’s live and let live.

The first commandment, don’t be a dick, applies equally to cyclists and spoilsports. If you are going to be dick about it, either by the way you ride or the way you respond to people who do ride, then don’t be surprised if you get some dickishness back.

We are indeed VERY lucky on the IOW.
Tennyson down is on of the places the NT don’t like people riding, that gets ignored by me, especially as the is livestock grazing up there, doing far more “damage”.
StefMcDef, you’re talking about the Luccombe Loon aren’t you!

^ The very fella! I think he actually sleeps in the hedge at the bottom of his garden waiting for mountain bikers like a troll under a bridge. No other explanation for the speed at which he appears.

There’s also a red bobble-hatted auld bint from the Provisional Wing of the Ramblers’ Association that used to get incredibly exorcised if she saw you riding somewhere she thought you shouldn’t be. She’d turn puce and grab your handlebars to impede your progress. I think she might have succumbed to spontaneous combustion though because I haven’t come across her for a couple of years.

There’s also a load of NT land round about Hamstead and Bouldnor that I wouldn’t bother cycling on because of all the NO CYCLING signs, even though the trails look pretty tempting. And the final frontier would be the grounds of Osborne House, but I don’t know of anyone who’s ever ridden in there.

Probably already been mentioned but riders posting videos of their local cheeky trails on Instagram, and naming the trails, is making things worse. Crapping on their own doorstep.

Probably already been mentioned but riders posting videos of their local cheeky trails on Instagram, and naming the trails, is making things worse. Crapping on their own doorstep.

+100

Stef, I’ve ridden around Hamstead and Bouldnor without any issues for years. Hamstead there isn’t that much good stuff, Bouldnor used to be good, until it slipped down towards the sea. Never (knowingly) encountered the bobble hatted one, shame.
I’ve toyed with clambering over the wall at the end of the E Cowes prom, but you’d be going in blind with no idea of any of the paths. Perhaps a rekky on foot might be worth it?

Interesting on the positiveness towards cheeky trails. Just wondering what peoples thoughts are on riding something like the ard rock trails? i mean its just a cheeky trail isnt it? and how were you to know anyway?

I think that’s the problem – what is a cheeky trail? Like i say above – it’s unclear. But there’s a distinct difference between trespass on private land i.e. ardrock stuff and ‘poaching’ a public footpath I guess to a lot of people.

^ Big Yinn – I only went to Osborne House for the first time last year when my folks were down visiting. The grounds are extensive and there are loads of nice windy-looking paths through woods down to the shore. Dunno how you’d get in, though, or whether they have bylaws which permit the peppering of passing peasants with buckshot. They probably do.

I’ve ridden down through Bouldnor to Yarmouth – think that’s part of the coastal path? That’s a great bit of trail but like you say, somewhat ruined by subsidence. But in the other direction towards Newtown there’s a cracking looking descent, again down to the shoreline, then some boardwalky stuff in the marshy bits in the vicinity of Newton Creek. This is the bit that has all the No Cycling signs.

A local farmer (admittedly not in a very popular or good riding area) I know says he prefers mountain bikers over walkers crossing his farmland any day of the week. We are “quieter, pass through faster, shut the gates and don’t have dogs with us” (pay attention to that last one “trail dog” owners). So therefore cause far less issues with livestock etc….

But in the other direction towards Newtown there’s a cracking looking descent, again down to the shoreline, then some boardwalky stuff in the marshy bits in the vicinity of Newton Creek. This is the bit that has all the No Cycling signs.

Yes its not bad that descent, I’ve ridden it a few times, you don’t relise how much height you gain from Yarmouth. Its not particularly techy, but its a good blast, but then its boardwalky and access roads back to Hampstead road, plus I have been told off before now riding down there, but meh! I don’t get why there is such an issue with cycling, its probably one of the least used bits of the coastal path, mainly because its pretty dull, I don’t think I’ve encountered anyone along there.

I seem to remember reading that the current rights of way were only set in stone in 1949, and that land owners had a considerable influence on the classification. If you think about there should be roughly the same density of bridleways where ever you are in the country as locals all had to get about from A to B. As an avid map browser you find some areas are total covered in bridleways, others none at all. Makes no sense.

In my local area you hardly see a soul on any of the rights of way either on foot or bike, so a tiny number of extra cycles have little or no effect other than to help keep the tracks clear.

Round here quite a few BWs terminate conveniently where they reach the edge of shooting estates. So I have no qualms about riding the bit they nicked off us, where it still exists, and a some other bits by way of recompense for the inconvenience.

She’d turn puce and grab your handlebars to impede your progress

Never seen this happen. Has anyone ever given them what they ‘deserve’ back i.e. a slap round the chops, to put them off doing it again? Not when it’s a little old lady, of course. I don’t condone violence, but if someone is getting that far in your face, I could imagine it would lead to fisticuffs…..

As an avid map browser you find some areas are total covered in bridleways, others none at all. Makes no sense.

This was a consequence of Local Councils being given discretion as to what they put on the definitive map when RoWs were defined as Footpath or Bridleway. Some Councils designated bridleways where they thought the historical use and physical track warranted it; others called them all footpaths because it would be cheaper to maintain them.