I wouldn’t call access to 1/3 of all rights of way in England and Wales being banned altogether. You want legal access then start fighting for it.

If the Kinder Trespassers had thought like you – ‘When I did live in England I never used footpaths because it is illegal. Just because a walker doesn’t seem bothered by your presence doesn’t mean he will then not go and complain to the council or the ramblers association.’ – we’d have bugger all access.

Not trying to pick a fight, just seems oddly contradictory and, like user-removed above, I don’t want a change to the RoW system. I like it just as it is.

Of course the big discussion that we all avoid is that if we, as a bunch, got organised, there’s plenty of footpaths and common land that we’ve all been riding without a problem for twenty years now that we could apply to be upgraded and secured in perpetuity

But of course, organising mountain bikers is like herding cats!

But really, why bother? I don’t know of a single person (other than the unverified tale on page one) who’s been arrested for cycling somewhere they shouldn’t. I’ve been kicked off a private estate whilst walking (map reading fail) but still wasn’t arrested.

Just can’t see the need for it.

The Duke of Westminster and someone who owns the Duchy of Lancaster have game keepers that turn anyone back – walkers runners cyclists and horse riders if it is nesting season or shooting season on most of the Trough of Bowl and.
I’m impressed with the CTCs attitude and the general consensus of anywhere with respect. Perhaps we should get one of those Parliamentary petitions and see if we can get enough signatures to get it debated?

tomaso, is that on Public Rights Of Way or Open Access Land ?

I wondered if riding on a footpath, if it was proved to be illegal, would invalidate your CTC insurance.

it is illegal, in the proper sense of the term, in that our right to use a footpath is not enshrined in law. in other words we have the right of access on a BW enshrined in law, but we don’t on footpaths. riding footpaths is not prohibited in any way, unless this is specifically stipulated by the land owner or their representative.
if you ride a footpath that has a ‘no cycling’ sign then you are trespassing, and/or, if challenged by the land owner or their representative ( note, not some random member of the public ), and informed by them that they don’t want you riding there, then you are obliged to offer recompense for any damage done ( one penny should do it ), and leave by the shortest available route.
this was discussed at some length about a year or 18 months ago, IIRC, and a copper who rides wrote an article about it for the mag.

I wouldn’t call access to 1/3 of all rights of way in England and Wales being banned altogether.

Not sure where you got this statistic, but in the area I live (the ‘desolate North’) I’d estimate that less than 5% of the PROW network is made up of bridleways or byways. (Without a shadow of doubt less than 10%). Yet many of the public footpaths are actually roads. Real tarmacked roads. And also a hell of a lot of armoured trails designed for vehicular access (agricultural traffic, etc). In many of these places you can pedal all day long during the height of summer and not bump into a single person. Furthermore, many of the bridleways that do exist end abruptly in the middle of nowhere, only to become public footpath, with no alternative options but to turn back.

Personally, I find the local access rights ridiculous, it’s difficult to muster any respect for them.

how would you feel if 4×4 vehicles and trail bikes started to illegally use bridleways

It’s a fair argument, but it’s very different. Two things: 4×4 vehicles usually generate a lot of noise. But more importantly they generate a lot of power. One pass of a 4×4 in the mud will do more damage than a thousand bikes. A bike however, generates no more power than a lone humanoid, weighs no more, and causes no more damage. Or perhaps it does? It seems we can’t decide. But the fact no one can convincingly claim either way, shows that any additional damage is barely perceptible.

There are places, especially those that experience heavy traffic (usually offering thrilling descents!), where riding may damage trails and annoy walkers. And mountain bikers can be bell ends at times. So if access were to be opened up, I wouldn’t be against local authorities having the power to ban cycling in problem areas. Until then I’ll continue to ride footpaths.

That could have been me, but there was an earlier article which is more relevant to this debate TBH, then a follow-up written by a policeman.

user-removed – Member

Just can’t see the need for it.

This neatly sums up both my opinion, for reasons mentioned several times above. Personally I ride on FP’s (only once in all my years been moaned at), professionally it doesn’t bother me in the slightest (plus I couldn’t do anything about it even it it did).

For me, how to legalise cycling on a FP is an interesting thought experiment, but is genuinely not worth the effort. Can of worms, sleeping dogs, etc, sorry 🙁

Just to throw a spanner in the works I can think of a few Bridleways that are used by the walkers for parking in the Lakes, two wrongs don’t make a right but at the end of the day access is abused by all user groups,probably sometimes unknowingly too.

Its worth pointing out that an OS map is “no representation of a right of way” too,so personally i don’t worry to much about where i ride, but do consider the environmental impact if its not dusty up here in the lakes.
a friendly courteous approach always smoothes the way.

Not directly relevant to the discussion, but this one always shows up the nonsense of footpath and bridleway classifications.
I’ve checked the County Definitive Map and yes,that really is a 25m bridleway in the middle of a footpath by Severn Lodge Cottage.

MidlandTrailquestsGraham – Member

I’ve heard the warnings that if you drive a car without an MOT it invalidates your insurance

It doesn’t.

Greybeard – Member

I think that’s because it says in the insurance policy that the car must be roadworthy, ie, MoT’d.

An MOT is not a guarantee of roadworthiness.

MidlandTrailquestsGraham – Member

Not directly relevant to the discussion, but this one always shows up the nonsense of footpath and bridleway classifications.

It looked from the screenshot that the northwest / southeast field boundary was a community boundary (so the 1950’s parish surveyors would have marked the route to the east as BW but someone else surveying an adjacent parish marked the same route on the western side as a FP – parish surveyors’ mistakes are probably to blame for 90% of problems like this), having looked at it on closer online its not. So, no idea 🙂

I’d flag it up to your RoW Department as an ‘anomaly’, which they’ll then investigate. Hopefully, and eventually, it’ll become a BW.

Hopefully, and eventually, it’ll become a BW.

Stand by for a 15 year court tussle.