Inspired by THIS recent thread, I did some digging.

Cycling on footpaths appears to OK, but may be a trespass against the land owner (head over to the other thread to dispute this). One caveat, however, is that if a specific byelaw exists, it may override any other rights. I’ve often read that the Peak District has byelaws that prohibit cycling, but thought I’d find them.

It’s harder than you might think to find where this comes from. This seems like a reasonably authoritative source: https://www.peakdistrict.gov.uk/visiting/planning-your-visit/crow … But there’s not much info there. Dig into the links and it yields this pdf of some sort of document created in 1996 setting out the byelaws: https://www.peakdistrict.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0023/96332/Byelaws-for-Access-Land-1996.pdf

There doesn’t appear to an updated version, but there’s some interesting stuff in there. Who knew there was a byelaw that prevented singing on access land if anyone complains? Or, perhaps more relevantly, anyone that continues to shout (at MTBers??), having been asked to stop is contravening the byelaws.

Anyway, it seems that this document only pertains to land owned by the PDNP that has been designated ‘access land’. Of course, MTB is manyfold more popular now than it was in 1996 and we don’t know what conclusions the PDNP would reach if re-making the document today. The obvious irony is that the laws that were created to enable access are being quoted by some as a way of restricting access.

At the end of the document, there’s a list of all of the land that makes up this access land, but it’s very difficult to interpret where this might be, although from that document, it sounds like it’s small slivers of land here and there – not a majority of the PDNP.

However, looking HERE suggests that rather a lot of the PDNP is ‘yellow’ access land. Perhaps more land has been designated access land since the 1996 document. Can other organisations (national trust, county councils etc) also designate land as Access Land? The PDNP byelaws wouldn’t apply here, I think?

Have I interpreted all this correctly?

To what Access Land do the PDNP Byelaws apply? Is there even any way of knowing?

Tick.

I’m sure I have seen news reports that access land has grown in size since 1996.

Sheffield has by-laws that cover parts of the Peak District but they expire at the boarder, they may not get picked up again by Derbyshire county council so its hard to put together a list of PD rules as they differ from place to place.

the PDF is interesting when it talks about vehicles. I wonder what constitutes a “reasonable excuse”? and that “no person… shall bring or cause to be bought on to the access land a cycle…”. seems to read you can’t even push your bike across open access land. i was always aware you can’t ride on open access land, but the slabs across brown knowle are too useful in linking jacobs and south head not too (adhering to rule number 1 obvs), however always thought you could just get off an push if challanged by a ranger or someone getting irate

Certainly the list of applicable bye-laws used to be printed and referenced on the back of signs indicating footpaths and bridleways, I recall stopping to look for it once – a long time ago. I’m fairly sure that the original bye-laws banning cycling on footpaths predates the idea of “access land” though maybe the 1996 changes superseded any previous laws?

Every now and again STW mention they might do an article about this kind of thing & I tried to get Keeper of the Peak to do it but its just so complex and there isn’t really a single answer so it never gets done.

there isn’t really a single answer

Well if that’s the case why do people (including many on here) trot out the same, apparently false, mantra that riding on footpaths is illegal in the peak because of a byelaw?

It would be nice to see what the actual law is. But the difficulty in finding it suggests that very few people (including those complaining about it) actually know what it is.

Because repeating something you have read on the internet is easier than getting a law degree and unraveling the mess that is English access law.

We’ll not know until there’s a test case. However with regard to not being able to even push your bike due to “no person… shall bring or cause to be bought on to the access land a cycle…” I do like the idea of taking an islabike in a rucksack and testing that particular bylaw. In the States they have national parks where they require people carry their bikes when crossing, I have no problem with this. Although getting a bollocking from a ranger in a jeep for riding a pushbike is a bit “Chris Morris”.

Surely if you want to impose a bylaw, it is incumbent on you to make it clear what they are and where they apply?

It seems ludicrous that even well informed and intentioned people cannot fathom it out.

The whole situation around access rights and the availability of information is archaic.

Well if that’s the case why do people (including many on here) trot out the same, apparently false, mantra that riding on footpaths is illegal in the peak because of a byelaw?

For the same reason that people repeat any amount of total bollocks they’ve read online.

Every now and again STW mention they might do an article about this kind of thing & I tried to get Keeper of the Peak to do it but its just so complex and there isn’t really a single answer so it never gets done.

Good. There’s very little point throwing a grenade into that particular can of worms and it’ll make precious little difference anyway – the people who ride irresponsibly will continue to do so, the people who ride with care (even if they’re occasionally using FP) will also continue to do so.

The vast majority of people using the outdoors have absolutely no idea of any of the rights of way stuff and as mentioned above a lot of it is archaic, confusing and contradictory anyway. I’ve been told I shouldn’t be riding on BW, we once had a woman tell us that the perfectly legal BW we were night-riding along on was “not a BW at night”, I’ve ridden past walkers on FP with nothing more than cheery greetings from both parties. The people that are going to moan about MTBers will do so no matter what; the people who don’t mind responsible riding will be fine with it (or worst case, they won’t care either way)

There are some perfectly rideable FP that link up sections, there are some massive boggy ruts that pretend to be BW, there are tarmac lanes which are in theory FP, there’s acres of open access land where (in theory) you can go wandering wherever on foot, and there are trails of all classifications that you wouldn’t ride during a summer weekend anyway so frankly, access laws are the least of the worries.

Ride whatever, don’t be a dick.

Noting what crazy-legs says, but if you want to know the legal position, it’s not just the byelaws. The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (Schedule 2) says you don’t have the right go on Access Land with a vehicle (and a bike is legally a vehicle). So it might not matter which bits of land are in the Byelaws, as that applies to any Access Land. If you’re on BW, then you’re there by that right, not because it’s access land.

But I agree with your conclusion, Superficial, that the land in the byelaws isn’t all the Access Land in the PDNP. The areas listed add up to about 11133 hectares, which is 11 sq km, and the PDNP website says there are about 500 sq km of Access Land in the NP.

Reading these things, it seems like somehow reclassifying my bike as an invalid carriage would be of benefit. Hmmm.

The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (Schedule 2) says you don’t have the right go on Access Land with a vehicle (and a bike is legally a vehicle). So it might not matter which bits of land are in the Byelaws, as that applies to any Access Land.

As covered in the other thread, though, that’s the same case as if you stopped on a footpath to chat – the right to access a footpath on private land is only for travelling across it. You can’t stop and fly a kite or take a photo etc. Even if there is no specific right to be there, that just means you could possibly be committing trespass? I’m not sure what sanctions are available for anyone proven to have broken a byelaw (in addition to the offence of trespass)? Presumably, like the offence of trespass, it’s a civil matter?

The areas listed add up to about 11133 hectares, which is 11 sq km, and the PDNP website says there are about 500 sq km of Access Land in the NP.

Yeah. The byelaws seem to only pertain to land that’s owned (or at least managed?) by PDNP, AND which they have designated access land. Access land owned by others? Not covered. PDNP-owned land that’s not been designated as Access Land? Not covered. Of course it’s possible that they’ve accrued more land since that list was compiled in 1996. Would these such areas be covered by byelaws?

Google says the PDNP is 1,437 km². So roughly a third of it is Access Land according to the PDNP website up top, but only a tiny fraction of that appears to be subject to the specific PDNP byelaws.

Full disclosure: the reason I’m interested is so that I have an accurate riposte for the occasional argumentative walker having a go, telling me I’m not supposed to be on a footpath. Most times I just cheerily use the brilliant “Yeah, it’s silly isn’t it? Have a good day!” response which usually shuts down any dorks spoiling for an argument.

Ride whatever, don’t be a dick.

Amen, brother.

and a bike is legally a vehicle

I don’t believe it is (“pedal cycle” ?)

I always like to be told bikes shouldn’t be on footpaths when the footpath in question is heavily rutted double track a farmer has chewed up.

As above and said before i like it vague and open to interpritation, you can always do the cheery smile “oh sorry i didnt know”.
Besides its not like clearly banning motor bike from the woods has worked.

Even if there is no specific right to be there, that just means you could possibly be committing trespass?

Yes, you’re right, I think I was a bit muddled there, that Act doesn’t change the position, cycling on Access Land in the absence of a RoW is trespassing, cycling on a footpath over Access Land might be trespassing, same as any other footpath.

I’m not sure what sanctions are available for anyone proven to have broken a byelaw?

That’s in the byelaws, para 23, a fine up to level 2.

(in addition to the offence of trespass)

An offence means a criminal act, so trespass isn’t an offence, just civil wrong.

and a bike is legally a vehicle

I don’t believe it is (“pedal cycle” ?)

I checked before I wrote that, a bike is a vehicle, just not a ‘motor vehicle’.