For my two-penneth…
I honestly think the “cheeky trails” approach is not making our case any stronger, as there’s an implicit acceptance that being there is “wrong”.

Instead, we should be riding those trails whenever we like, regardless of how it’s designated. Just be nice to everyone you meet on the way and ride appropriately.

Of course, if you want to go full-tilt and knock your friend’s time off the Strava leaderboard, then you’re going to have to ride when it’s quiet, but that’s not a reason to avoid riding those trails responsibly at busier times.

all the best bits are designated as footpaths.

where I am, the best bits aren’t even marked on a map. so if I ever do encounter am angry walker, we are both equally in the wrong…

jam bo – so if I ever do encounter am angry walker, we are both equally in the wrong…

Unless its open access land in which case you are wrong and the walker isnt… sort of

Surely the perception that bikes shouldn’t be on a footpath tends to increase conflict, and makes criminal bylaws and physical barriers against bikes far more more likely?

Depends on how you see the “cheeky trails” thing – for me it’s the law which is wrong, not my presence. I am ignoring the law because it is wrong rather than because I am a scofflaw.

I recall reading the British Social Attitudes survey a few years back. It showed roughtly a 50-50 split between answers to the following

“If a law is wrong should you
1. ignore it
2. obey it anyway”

(or words to that effect).

So on the cheeky trails argument. Let’s say the law is irrelevant to you and what you really want to do is legitimize cycling rather than legalize a right of access. On the basis of that survey, you’ll only convince half the population to agree with you at most. To convince anyone who answered (2) to the above you have to get the law changed, even if it’s only a means to an end.

My experience is that pretty much everyone who has had an objection to me riding on footpaths is really only annoyed because I’m willingly breaking the law.

The fact that its NOT against the law is what the general public, including most cyclists, need educating on.

Also whose call is it to decide a law is wrong? I think the law that says stabbing your co-worker who constantly hums out of tune is a bad thing, is wrong, but I suspect if I break that law I’ll not get far with that defence

I don’t get this thing about riding on footpaths not being against the law. We don’t have a right of way, so surely we’re then trespassing which is wrong?

Looking at the access thing from a different angle.

When was it democratically decided that people should not have open access to the country?

Maybe this should be decided democratically?

After all if you can be conscripted to fight and die for “freedom”and your “country”, should not that freedom include the right to access to your country. 🙂

chrispo – I don’t get this thing about riding on footpaths not being against the law. We don’t have a right of way, so surely we’re then trespassing which is wrong?

Trespass is not just being somewhere without permission, its wrongful interference with one’s possessory rights.

indeed thepodge – when you pick them up on this, you still hear the old line ‘ah well, its a civil offence’ being bandied about

No it isn’t, there’s no such thing as a civil ‘offence’ – its a tort, not an ‘offence’ of any sort.

its no more an ‘offence’ than letting your dog off the lead on a footpath.

We don’t have a right of way, so surely we’re then trespassing which is wrong?

“England, it may be said, is not a country where everything is forbidden except what is expressly permitted: it is a country where everything is permitted except what is expressly forbidden.“

Megharry V.C. in Malone

ninfan, am I correct in thinking you have law training?

chrispo – Member
I don’t get this thing about riding on footpaths not being against the law. We don’t have a right of way, so surely we’re then trespassing which is wrong?

i own a (very) small field.

there’s no right of way across it, but i couldn’t care less if a bunch of mtb’ers wanted to ride around/through it. go nuts.

see?

‘no right of way’ does not mean ‘you can’t ride there’.

(walkers on the other hand can piss off)

OK, but I’ve read elsewhere that if the landowner says sling your hook then you can’t ride there any more. If you’re not trespassing, on what basis can they do that? Are people allowed to walk through my garden whenever they want as long as they don’t damage the roses?

My cousin summed up cyclists on footpaths as a bit like a private members club

Anyone can go in a private members club but if you are asked to leave by the landlord then you must do so or you could get into trouble but the act of going into the club is not illegal in its self.

I cant think of an analogy from the walker side of things.

Your garden is a totally different matter, fields are not gardens

Are people allowed to walk through my garden whenever they want as long as they don’t damage the roses?

if you don’t mind, then yes they can.

OK, but I’ve read elsewhere that if the landowner says sling your hook then you can’t ride there any more. If you’re not trespassing, on what basis can they do that?

The land owner is forced to permit walkers.

The land owner is allowed to ban cyclists.

The land owner is not forced to ban cyclists.

thepodge – lots of years of rights of way work 😳

thepodge – lots of years of rights of way work

Would you mind if I dropped you an email regarding this? Its only one question… which may lead to a couple of follow ups but I promise to keep it very brief.

“Instead, we should be riding those trails whenever we like, regardless of how it’s designated. Just be nice to everyone you meet on the way and ride appropriately.”

This is very interesting discussion and there are some great points being raised.

Until fairly recently I kindof agreed with the above and hoped that the ‘just be nice’ approach would work but I’m starting to come to the conclusion that, at least as far as walkers in the Peak District are concerned mountain bikers are parasites intent on spoiling their day.

I witnessed this first hand from the ‘other side of the fence’ so to speak recently when out running on a recently re-surfaced footpath in the Peak District that has started to become quite popular with mountain bikers:

I’d ridden the same footpath the previous week very early in the morning and had not seen a sole, however when running it a week later, on a pleasant sunny Sunday late morning there were a lots of walkers & ramblers when a group of cyclist were heading along the path. As I ran past each group of walkers, the vitriol towards the on-coming cyclists was a bit of an eye opener … one of the walkers took such exception to the cyclists that they had written ‘THIS IS NOT A FOOTPATH’ with a walking stick in large letters in the sandy/gritstone soil – the irony of which was not lost on me.

As they approached, the cyclists were friendly and pleasant enough but the walkers had already made up their minds – the cyclists had no ‘right’ to be there.

I was left with the distinct impression that as far as these 20 odd walkers were concerned. Mountain Bikers were irrationally hated/disliked and they didn’t want to have to share the ‘footpaths’ with them – no discourse would change this point of view.

Will it stop me riding [suitable/appropriate] footpaths? No … It just made me even more convinced that the solution as far as the Peak District is concerned (and I do appreciate that there are other factors in other areas) is keeping to early mornings/late nights and self imposed responsibility as a general ‘access all areas’ approach would only lead to further conflict and antagonism as numbers increase in sensitive areas

Digby…

where as I have been on a very similar sounding path, possibly the same one and been offered cake by a group of walkers, and when I came down the front of Stanage just after lunch this last Sunday, something I would generally reserve for before 9 and after 6 but circumstances dictated the time of this ride, all the walkers bar one were polite and let me past.

Taring everyone with the same brush does no one any good

pleasure – labrat.imba (at) gmail.com

Thanks

Re: gardens vs fields. Gardens come under the “law of curtilage” http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/cgmanual/cg64245.htm basically land or an enclosed space/yard intimately associated with a dwelling. The word curtilage derives from the French for courtyard.

whitestone – Member
Re: gardens vs fields. Gardens come under the “law of curtilage”…

It’s pretty straightforward. It’s good manners to not closely approach someone’s house.

Certainly it works ok in Scotland, and the walkers are generally friendly too. 🙂

Taring everyone with the same brush does no one any good

I wasn’t aware that I had – my impression was based on comments from the 20 or so walkers – as I said:

I was left with the distinct impression that as far as these 20 odd walkers were concerned …

I’m a walker/hiker/climber myself so I was very saddened to see such irrational behaviour!

With regards the location I’m slightly reluctant to post on a public forum, but it may well be the same location you refer to – much of the footpath is now flag-stones apart from the final section to the south where it meets an intersection with a BW.

Stanage is a BW though – and it often attracts a slightly different demographic I think. I’ve ridden it many times and never had an issue – quite often boulderers with their matts on their backs have held open the gates for me. But generally as you say it is another route best avoided during peak times.

There have been a few prominent cases in Scotland where people tried to use the idea of invasion of privacy to limit access to their land. IIRC the courts have been pretty good at working out when there are genuine issues with privacy and when it’s just an attempt to limit access for whatever other reason.

Think the issue is between people who believe in coexistence and those who don’t.

It’s pretty straightforward. It’s good manners to not closely approach someone’s house.

Certainly it works ok in Scotland, and the walkers are generally friendly too.

True, I was pointing out the difference between garden and field which as @spin notes is used to determine when privacy is being imposed upon.

We’ve a bridleway that runs right past the house so regularly get folk going past.

We came across opposite ends of the walker spectrum in the Peak District last Christmas: one grumpy sod who didn’t have the civility to return a hello or say thanks when the gate was held open for him. Made up for by the couple we chatted to further up the track and helped them work out where the monument they were looking for was. Like @Digby I’m a walker and climber as well so not as if I’m anti anything.

chrispo – Member
I don’t get this thing about riding on footpaths not being against the law. We don’t have a right of way, so surely we’re then trespassing which is wrong?

The RoW of English footpaths is just a granted right by the state overriding the wishes of land owners based on established access. Many land owners would rather that RoW didn’t exist. Many don’t mind though, and some actually are quite happy for bikes to be on there also. The official RoW doesn’t exist but if the land owner doesn’t mind, go right ahead.

It’s down to the land owner to say if it’s wrong basically. Though obviously some things are taking the piss. If their front door is open and you walk through their house for example 😀 (if you break in however then you’re breaking the law), or walking through their garden. Although in the latter case I found a footpath recently which literally goes through someone’s garden complete with signs saying private, gated and clearly want you not there but the RoW signs exist and they have no choice. Though they have applied to get the RoW removed though.

Other thing with trespass is it has to be intentional. If you wander onto land having not seen a private keep out sign and perhaps from an adjoining open access area then you can claim innocence (Winterfold Woods in Surrey Hills is an example if you happen to miss the signs dotted around when you get to Jim’s land, and don’t realise why there’s trees down blocking entrances to trails 😉 . Given then the adjoining Hurtwood land is open access to bikes).

Something I don’t think has been mentioned so far.

There seems to be a feeling that opening up access will increase conflicts but it could just as easily reduce them as riders will have a wider choice of routes and so pressure on some routes might decrease.

Interesting stuff, thanks. Still not convinced my insurance would cover me if I took guidees down footpaths but am tempted now to try some on my own…

Does there have to be a sign saying “no bikes” or might the Queen, say, who seems to own most open countryside one way or another, have already issued a blanket ban on riding on her land?

@ThePodge – nowt received yet, still happy to help.

just sent it about 5 minutes ago, I’m quite slow in more than just my riding

Coincidentally, I note that there was a discussion about a group of riders on the footpath I mentioned earlier on the ‘Peak District MTB’ FB page. Given that this was the same day I was running that footpath, it isn’t inconceivable that the walkers perceived annoyance was due in fact that it was a group of riders on the descent …

Which made me wonder about two elements of this scenario and the well meaning & commendable suggested idea of ‘Respect’ when riding on designated footpaths:

Firstly I wonder whether there is a exponential increase in the perceived nuisance when we ride footpaths in a group? The occasional lone but cheery cyclist on a footpath is seemingly more tolerated than a group ‘swarming’ over the path (I use the pejorative term ‘swarm’ intentionally as this [sadly] seems to be an aspect of human perception)

Secondly if said part of the footpath is a descent then any rider using it will want to ride it at ‘maximum’ – thus alienating any walkers who quite rightly see this as a disruption of their quiet enjoyment.

Which makes me think that whilst it’s perfectly possible to cycle certain footpaths in an enlightened and non-confrontational manner (such as the conduit FP mentioned on the PDMTB page) I do wonder about the viability of this when riding in groups and on ‘downhill’ segments of footpaths. Would it not be better to self-impose a restriction on riding these footpaths during ‘Peak Times’? Permitted/tolerated or otherwise, the continued increase of some of these footpaths during peak time is likely to become a contentious issue.

Whilst not always ideal, such restrictions have certain merit in other areas popular with walkers: Snowdon and Chamonix spring to mind

Surely the onus is on us mountain bikers to show that we are respectful of other users and the areas we play in. And I’m wondering whether this can only come through education and self restraint. Otherwise the diatribe, vitroil and contempt directed at us from other memebers of society is only likely to be exacerbated.

Digby you touch on a key point with regard to the open access discussion. There will inevitably need to be exceptions and the voluntary agreement on Snowdon is a great example of this. There will be countless other required exceptions such as relate to nesting birds, for example.

Whether open access happens or not, the education you suggest should be happening now. It is up to all of us to educate our peers on responsible and respectful riding, regardless of the status of our access rights.

Digby – Member
…Secondly if said part of the footpath is a descent then any rider using it will want to ride it at ‘maximum’ – thus alienating any walkers who quite rightly see this as a disruption of their quiet enjoyment…

Any rider not slowing down to a walking pace well before a group of walkers or a blind corner is part of the reason there’s opposition.

We had exactly the same problem with trail motorbikes 30 or so years ago. Basically no one worried about them, but as the numbers increased so did the rooster tail idiots. The result? – total bans for motorbikes on almost everything. Gnar heroes could do the same for mtbs.

If you want to go fast, then go to a trail park, or post a string of lookouts along the route so you know it’s clear.

There will be countless other required exceptions such as relate to nesting birds, for example.

This works very well in the climbing world but might be a little harder to operate with biking.

Digby you touch on a key point with regard to the open access discussion. There will inevitably need to be exceptions and the voluntary agreement on Snowdon is a great example of this. There will be countless other required exceptions such as relate to nesting birds, for example.

Whether open access happens or not, the education you suggest should be happening now. It is up to all of us to educate our peers on responsible and respectful riding, regardless of the status of our access rights.

Much of the answer there is in smart provision – creation of honeypots, car park provision and waymarked routes have been a standard method of countryside management through ‘nudge’ psychology for decades. It’s well known that if you create quality provision, the ‘sheep’ will follow the routes, which is the best way of protecting the sensitive areas from excess disturbance. You don’t need to ‘ban’ things to control them, gentle persuasion and education play a big part, but much of it is just down to offering some good old fashioned guidance.

Firstly I wonder whether there is a exponential increase in the perceived nuisance when we ride footpaths in a group?

I think big groups of any type of user are likely to be seen as more of an annoyance and sometimes even intimidating. It’s like the difference between a couple of starlings and The Birds… or something like that. I mostly ride alone or with one or two others partly for that reason.