I'm a bird-murdering, sheep-worrying, landscape wrecker.

It would be best to clarify this statement.
This is true of most footpaths, but where the land owner e.g. the Malvern Conservators has managed to get a specific bylaw in place, then it IS illegal to ride on the footpaths.

Technically, that would be a “MAYBE” rather than an “IS” – it is only criminal because the landowner has NOT giver permission, however it remains within the landowners powers to grant authority. A perfect example would be the Forestry Commission, where riding on any FC land is technically illegal under the byelaws, but the FC have given extensive permission to use the land regardless of this.

In the case of common land, the landowner has the authority to give permission to do anything they want on the land, as long as it does not interfere unacceptably with the rights of the commoners, or is restricted by law (eg, erection of fenced enclosures on common land) – given that a great many commons are already subject to S193 of the law of property act (unrestricted access for air and exercise on foot or horseback) or foot access under CROW, the argument that giving permission for bikes would interfere with the rights of commoners (if any exist) is at best spurious.

jimw – It would be best to clarify this statement.
This is true of most footpaths, but where the land owner e.g. the Malvern Conservators has managed to get a specific bylaw in place, then it IS illegal to ride on the footpaths.

Nice clarification but the number of clean footpaths vastly outweighs the number of bylaw restricted footpaths so in general and more times than not, its NOT illegal and the quicker people understand that, the better.

I’m trying to think of an analogy but failing.

#bunchofsnitchers

😆

My understanding: The legality of it isn’t really to do with the footpath status. It’s to do with the bylaw.

It’s only illegal to ride on a footpath if there’s a bylaw forbidding it in the same way it’s only illegal to walk on an area of land if there’s a specific law forbidding it.

The absence of a right of way for cyclists isn’t the same as a law forbidding them. There’s no specific RoW saying you’re allowed to carry your shopping bags on footpaths or walk a dog. That doesn’t make it illegal.

FYI the NT does have its own set of byelaws…

The thing is (not that it really really matters, but for the sake of clarity) how is a regular person expected to be aware of such bylaws, even more so with spurious /fake signage, it’s a recipe for confusion.

What I cant understand is the inflammatory angle towards cyclists. Such a sign can cause divsions and resentment etc.

I don’t find it hard to understand at all.

Have the signs gone now?