Prosecuted for riding bikes on National Trust land?

The point was whether the HRA would apply to a private land owner. The fact that there’s a prow crossing that land or the fact that it is open access land doesn’t mean they are discharging a public function and as such they are not a ‘public body’

The NT Act certainly mentions acting for the benefit of the nation. I think we need Ninfan to get chopsy with a NT land agent for the purpose of instigating a test case.

Don’t worry, the NT are too busy spending all their time and money trying to destroy hill farming and getting rid of sheep off the fells in Cumbria to care about naughty cyclists.

DPP v Jones [1995]

About the right to protest on the public highway… so entirely irrelevant.

Tabernacle v Secretary of State for Defence [2009] EWCA Civ 23

About activity that had been going on for 23 years and the suppression of the right to protest about nuclear weapons by bylaw… so only relevant in that it applies to bylaws.

Kuznetsov [2008] ECHR

About Russian death squads and subsequently rejected by the UK courts as not appropriate here.

Not sure there’s anything in any of those that lets cyclists ride where they like over other people’s land.

project – Member
are you sure he was /is a magistrate,lots of strange people pop out at christmas some with made up jobs and a chip on their shoulder.

dannyh – Member
Agreed. I’d forgotten about having to tolerate the ‘got a new pair of jogging trainers and a New Year resolution’ brigade for the first three weeks of January.

I’d never thought of this, but in retrospect it makes so much sense.

Has any cyclist ever been prosecuted simply for riding off road? Other than on the pavement or through a shopping centre pedestrianised area it seems pretty unlikely.

he claimed to be a magistrate

surely you should have punted him in the slats then proceeded to enquire why he wasnt doing real criminals

jeesus this place is slipping

Surely you should have punted him in the slats then proceeded to enquire why he wasnt doing real criminals

I’d started undoing the stem ready to drop the forks and give him a good hoofing but unfortunately he’d said his piece and buggered off before I could get the front wheel out.

Cycle Protest

I am cycling here as a deliberate act of personal and public protest against the current access situation for mountain bikers in the UK, and I intend to take part in an organised political protest, akin to the Kinder Scout trespasses of 1932, against the unjustified continuing inequity of rights of access between walkers and cyclists,
Cycling constitutes not only the matter and form of my protest, but also the essence, nature and quality of my protest. Cycling both constitutes and is inseparable from the message of my protest.?The right to peaceful protest is enshrined in law, and any attempt to restrict my right to protest either personally or as part of a group will amount to an unjustifiable interference with my article 10 and 11 Human Rights
My protest is designed to be as unintrusive as possible, and it is not my intention to interfere in any way any with lawful activities. If at any time I become aware of disturbance to any lawful activities or conflict with protected wildlife or a nature conservation site in my vicinity I will move on immediately to avoid continuing that disturbance. I maintain that my presence and protest here causes no more disturbance or interruption than the unrestricted right of access that I am permitted to exercise on foot.

Reference caselaw:
DPP v Jones [1995]
Tabernacle v Secretary of State for Defence [2009] EWCA Civ 23
Kuznetsov [2008] ECHR

That’s a full A3 poster, not a card… I think we probably need something shorter and sharper that’s effectively shorthand for all the above.

On a slight parallel, as well as riding a bike, I walk and run a fair bit and there’s nothing more ridiculous than someone riding a footpath pretending to be ‘lost’, you know, here we are on Kinder Scout and you’re pretending that you thought it was the Sett Valley Trail. It just looks stupid and duplicitous and it’s an insult to my intelligence.

If you’re going to ride footpaths, do it with confidence and a sense that you have a moral right to be there. Because, guess what, you have.

As a further aside, my opinion of the National Trust went precipitously southwards after they thoughtfully covered the bottom section of the Edale Cross / Jacob’s bridleway with fist-sized loose rubble that’s horrible on foot, on a bike and apparently on a horse too.

I’ve been told informally that it was to make access easier for the MRT’s Landrovers, but it suggests that the National Trust is more interested in running twee tea-rooms than it is in I have no issue with the track being maintained, but the way they did it was awful.

Has any cyclist ever been prosecuted simply for riding off road? Other than on the pavement or through a shopping centre pedestrianised area it seems pretty unlikely.

I have vague memories of a couple of mountain bikers in the Peak District being fined under a National Park bylaw back in the 1990s – based on reading a local newspaper. See also this thread. That said, the emphasis round here in the Peak at least, seems to have shifted towards encouraging cyclists to ride legally rather than fining them.

It must be some years ago now that the NT were (allegedly) collecting car reg’s of suspected cheeky trail riders in the Goyt Valley.

BadlyWiredDog – If you’re going to ride footpaths, do it with confidence and a sense that you have a moral right to be there. Because, guess what, you have.

Very much the above and very little of the below

ninfan -I suggest that you have learned a valuable lesson here:

option one: Smile and wave boys, smile and wave, don’t get trapped into a discussion, just ride merrily into the sunset

Option two: if they say “you’re not allowed to ride here” or similar, and option one is out, then the correct answer is “Yes, I know, silly isn’t it?” Quickly followed up by riding off merrily into the sunset

Option three: upon encountering the plainly ridiculous (I’m a magistrate) then the correct response is “That’s nice for you” before, as you can possibly guess by now, riding merrily into the sunset

Job jobbed

I’ve clashed with ninfan and Open MTB on this before but I really don’t see why the official group that is supposed to be promoting better access is actively reinforcing lies and misunderstanding when they say you should agree with people who say its illegal to ride footpaths.

In my view we’ll get more of what we want when we act like grown up, stop referring to stuff as “Cheeky” and educate people

In my view we’ll get more of what we want when we act like grown up, stop referring to stuff as “Cheeky” and educate people

+1

I grew up with my parents working in the National Trust, until I went to uni I’d never lived outside of an estate (of the non council variety).

Some people are dicks. Top of the list:
I’ve come home to find people wandering around the garden
I’ve patiently explained to walkers the difference between an OS map and the definitive map. And that yes it’s shown as a footpath, but it’s not (it’s a 10ft fence, a deer park, a severn-trent pumping station and a reservoir), there are no ‘footpaths’ on that estate despite the OS maps errors.
I once came home to people wandering around our house!

I suspect that in the workers version of events (and the truth that lies somewhere between the two probably) Bikeboy is probably one of those dicks too.

I maintain that my presence and protest here causes no more disturbance or interruption than the unrestricted right of access that I am permitted to exercise on foot.

I quite like this section though I’d probably drop the protest bit.

I thought the protest bit was the important part, since everyone has a RIGHT to peaceful protest. Your action of riding the bike at that spot is not just recreational, or to go from A to B, but part of a protest…. and therefore by definition, you have a right to do so legally and without recourse (provided no criminal damage is being done).

“All they are allowed to do is ask that you get off your bike and walk.”

On a footpath, yes. I believe it has to be the landowner (or a representative) too. My understanding is it only becomes a problem if you refuse to leave.

I thought the protest bit was the important part, since everyone has a RIGHT to peaceful protest. Your action of riding the bike at that spot is not just recreational, or to go from A to B, but part of a protest…. and therefore by definition, you have a right to do so legally and without recourse (provided no criminal damage is being done).

It’s not an absolute right. If you’re breaking a law, you’re still breaking a law, even if you claim to be protesting against the law.

Reductio ad absurdum: I’m not stealing, I’m protesting against capitalism.

Fair enough, I stand corrected.

For me the whole protest thing might make you sound like a bit of a know it all especially throwing in human rights which is not the desired result.

Added to my earlier post I think you should make it clear that you are there for recreational reasons, we need to stop avoiding the issue and making excuses for ourselves.

You’ll never bring the nutters round to our way of thinking but you can neutralise some people with polite education.

That trail I mentioned earlier in this thread, well I’ve not ridden it for ages and ages now. Now I prefer to trail run it.

In its glory, this morning..

I think we probably need something shorter and sharper that’s effectively shorthand for all the above.

In most of these cases I suspect stuff is said that is quite a lot shorter and sharper (and only nominally shorthand for the above).

The ‘right to protest’ thing does have the whiff of ‘Freeman of the Land’ about it.

I prefer the ‘yes I know, daft isn’t it?’ approach to random walkers. If a landowner or agent kicks up a fuss, I’ll just get off and walk.

I really don’t see why the official group that is supposed to be promoting better access is actively reinforcing lies and misunderstanding when they say you should agree with people who say its illegal to ride footpaths.

In my view we’ll get more of what we want when we act like grown up, stop referring to stuff as “Cheeky” and educate people .

But riding a bike on a footpath on NT land is illegal

It’s all well and good being high handed and claiming that you are trying to educate people about the difference, but do you even know when you are breaking the law yourself?

I would openly challenge you to give me a list of all the commonly ridden land designations where riding a bike would be illegal rather than trespass. Let’s give you a few starters and see if you can tell us which is which, so we can go out and ‘educate’ people like you think we should:

CROW access land
Common Land
MOD land
Forestry Commission land
WIldlife Trust/Nature Reserve
NAtional Naure Reserve
SSSI

It’s not an absolute right. If you’re breaking a law, you’re still breaking a law, even if you claim to be protesting against the law.

Nonsense, youre not breaking the law if you are justified in doing so by an alternative overarching right or reasonable excuse. If you try and punch me in the face, you are breaking the law, if I see you swing and punch you first, I am not breaking the law, I have a right to self defence, exercising that right doesn’t excuse me breaking the law, it prevents me breaking the law.

^^^^^^^^^

Great thread and all this arguing is interesting, but if the above is correct then isn’t this part of the problem?

Knowing if you are/not breaking the law is a sodding minefield that even the experts don’t seem to be able to agree on!

Is anyone able to post a definitive answer for all this?

Let’s give you a few starters and see if you can tell us which is which, so we can go out and ‘educate’ people like you think we should:

CROW access land
Common Land
MOD land
Forestry Commission land
WIldlife Trust/Nature Reserve
NAtional Naure Reserve
SSSI
I think most of us would just like to see the answers to this, rather than enjoy the debate (even if we have to then miss out on biscuits).

Nonsense, youre not breaking the law if you are justified in doing so by an alternative overarching right or reasonable excuse.

I would suggest that stating that the “higher rights in regard to this PROW have yet to be determined by public inquiry and as such I believe the definitive map to be incorrect and assert my right to ride here” would be shorter and sufficient to confuse the uninitiated

The odds that there has been a public inquiry (part of the process to settle claims of higher rights) are low. Picking your fights might be wise.

Thoughts on this ninfan*. ?

* Resident subject matter expert

Is anyone able to post a definitive answer for all this?

I doubt it, the issues are complex with local nuances. For example Urban Commons are no go for cyclists unless a bridleway or higher exists and then you are restricted to the line. However the land owner can give consent (Lee Quarry) for example which then allows cyclists to ride there.

There is a strong public health argument to free up access to PROW footpaths, but they won’t/ shouldn’t be made in to bridleways as it would give LA’s a big headache to tackle the gates etc required

I think that would be perfectly acceptable on a rote that were ‘of debatable historic status’ or over which there was long established de-facto bike use (i.e. It’s about time we claimed it, something that I know is in discussion behind the scenes over, due to changes in the recording process under the deregulation act, but I can’t go public with yet)

It’s very close to what the TRF used to say with moto use on old routes, but NERC removed their ability to rely on it, non-motorisedusers absolutely can use it though.

I doubt it, the issues are complex with local nuances. For example Urban Commons are no go for cyclists unless a bridleway or higher exists and then you are restricted to the line. However the land owner can give consent (Lee Quarry) for example which then allows cyclists to ride there.

Pretty much my point, it’s, simply remarkably complex and nuanced – even the greatest of rights of way/access law geeks cannot, realistically, ever know the full legal status of the land they are riding on at all times, therefore to say we should be ‘educating’ people by saying we are not breaking the law is impossible, because so few of us actually know whether we are.

There is a strong public health argument to free up access to PROW footpaths, but they won’t/ shouldn’t be made in to bridleways as it would give LA’s a big headache to tackle the gates etc required

Going to put this out there,

We are not going to win anything by keeping on discussing blanket opening of footpaths

Not all footpaths are suitable for bikes, therefore arguing for it makes us utterley unreasonable, we have been repeating the same mantra for thirty years, and achieved nothing more than banging our head against a brick walll, because every time we discuss it we fail to recognise and admit that not all footpaths are suitable for bikes, so it just pours petrol on the fire and stokes up opposition

The debate needs to move on and argue for access to the routes that are reasonable for bikes to be changed, as quickly and as easily as possible. there will not be a blanket change

I thought you needed to show horse use for any new claim? As well as free access for said horses ( no locked gates or stiles)?

ninfan – but do you even know when you are breaking the law yourself?

All the bloody time apparently

How does telling people we’re wrong get them to believe we are right?

How does telling people we’re wrong get them to believe we are right?

Because in order for change to happen, The first step is admitting there is a problem.

But its only a small problem, we don’t need to make it a bigger one.

“I’m here illegally, can I have more please” doesn’t seem to to be as good as “I already have a bit, could I have a bit more please?”

Going to put this out there,

We are not going to win anything by keeping on discussing blanket opening of footpaths

Not all footpaths are suitable for bikes, therefore arguing for it makes us utterley unreasonable, we have been repeating the same mantra for thirty years, and achieved nothing more than banging our head against a brick walll, because every time we discuss it we fail to recognise and admit that not all footpaths are suitable for bikes, so it just pours petrol on the fire and stokes up opposition

The debate needs to move on and argue for access to the routes that are reasonable for bikes to be changed, as quickly and as easily as possible. there will not be a blanket change

Access in Scotland seems to work completely via self-regulation. User conflict and/or unsuitability means that mountain bikers don’t ride everywhere in practice, even if they have a right to do so in principle. Am I missing something here?

Podge

You seem to be convinced that if we could just convince everyone that riding bikes on a footpath isn’t illegal, it was only a trespass, then it would solve everything

It doesn’t make any ‘king difference, it’s pathetic sophistry

What we need to do is change the law/status of these routes so that bikes are allowed on them

And your solution doesn’t move us one step down that path

Jumping up and down asking to be allowed on all footpaths doesn’t get us anywhere either.

Access in Scotland seems to work completely via self-regulation. User conflict and/or unsuitability means that mountain bikers don’t ride everywhere in practice, even if they have a right to do so in principle. Am I missing something here?

Yes, that, much as you might like it, we are not going to win that debate in England or Wales. We have been saying the same old thing for thirty years, and we haven’t got anywhere with it.

We need to start being pragmatic and arguing for more access to the places that are suitable, e.g. Existing tracks ad paths on CROW land & upgrading shed loads of footpaths that are perfectly usable by bike, without distancing and excommunicating ourself with unreasonable requests, like demanding access to all footpaths.

We need to make it CLEAR that We’re not asking for the simple blanket opening of footpaths, not all are suitable for cycling, but many are – our message needs to reflect that. We have banged our head against the wall asking for something that was so ‘out there’ that it didn’t just get dismissed as an unreasonable request, but actively threw petrol on the fire every time we discussed it. Now, I’m not saying that long term we wouldnt all love to see something equivalent to Scottish access, but in the words of Swiss Tony, campaigning for access is like making love to a beautiful woman… you have to ask them out for dinner before you tell them what you would like to do to them afterwards.

Am I missing something here?

Look at it the other way round. Australia has very tight access laws (so i believe). You could easily say “cyclists already have better access than lots of other countries, stop complaining”

Plus England / Wales is very different to Scotland.

How so? Population density?

Apart from the lack of deep fried mars bars, in what way exactly?

ninfan – You seem to be convinced that if we could just convince everyone that riding bikes on a footpath isn’t illegal, it was only a trespass, then it would solve everything

No I said education is better than misinformation.

People will ride footpaths regardless, openly criminalising cyclists is an odd way to legalising them.

aracer – Apart from the lack of deep fried mars bars, in what way exactly?

Similar but different laws at all levels.

The idea should work but to get it to work is harder than it is in Scotland.

No I said education is better than misinformation.

No, you are seeking to ‘educate’ people by banging on about ‘it’s not illegal, it’s just trespass’ even when you don’t know the difference yourself, that’s just pointless, because the day that you run up against someone like me on the other side who actually knows what the law is on that big of land, every cyclist who repeats your mantra looks like a knob.

The only misinformation is from you, because no rider can ever know the legal status of the land they are riding on, so you are creating a false sense of security and righteousness, in thinking they are not breaking the law, when in many cases they in fact will be.