Pushing your bike along a footpath clarification

Lumping all farmers together as a strange bunch and suggesting they unfairly benefit from subsidies isn’t helpful is it. It’s the kind of ‘them and us’ b0ll0cks that stirs this 5hite up.

Might also be worth recording this as a missing link, sounds like perhaps it should be a bridleway if you’re needing it to get to a path that actually is one? https://www.cyclinguk.org/missinglinks

Lumping all farmers together as a strange bunch and suggesting they unfairly benefit from subsidies isn’t helpful is it. It’s the kind of ‘them and us’ b0ll0cks that stirs this 5hite up.

No I agree. That’s not my view at all. I’m always very respectful and courteous. I won’t lie though, yesterday I may have used the odd bit of language I wouldn’t normally but I’ve never, ever been physically pushed and threatened like that.

I mean they called and accused me of many things and so I’m pretty proud of my restraint really.

To be honest, as that comment above shows, the lockdowns are very likely the reason why a lot of landowners have become so aggressive from the get go. I think they see themselves being overrun with the general public and all the aggro, lack of care and respect and litter that this always entails.

Most of us here ride the odd footpath now and again I’m sure and in the past it’s rarely been an issue as overall, we tend to be respectful and leave no trace.
I think the lockdowns have made everything much worse for sure.

This is what I was, as calmly as I could, trying to get out of them. That, yes I was pushing a bicycle and they thought that was against the law in some way, but really, what possible harm was I doing and why would they go so far out of their way in a beautiful day to get incredibly angry and borderline violent for a bloke simply walking his dog and bicycle along a footpath?
They weren’t interested in my asking of course, just kept repeating that I wasn’t allowed.

They said could I not read signs, did I drive up to Give Way signs on the road and just ignore them? I pointed out that there was a bit of a difference between an official metal sign on the road, than a scrawled mess on the back of a sheep feed lid. Just because you make a sign, doesn’t mean that it’s law.

I think this would be a really good thing for a cycling magazine to look into. There must be examples of this all over this backward little England.

I can’t think of a magazine whose readers might have an interest in this sort of thing though… 🤔😉

Edit-Thanks Hannah. Nice to have input from one of you guys 😊

The “lead or drive” bit. It doesn’t refer to bikes, but it was 1835…

That’s a brilliant find! Three years ago it snowed on this date, and I’ve just been reminded on FB of my 3 year old daughter breaking the law by pulling her 5 year old brother along on a sledge on the pavement.

What about carrying a bike, over the shoulders, on a footpath whereby none of the bike is touching the ground?

As @funkrodent says – a bike is technically (by the letter of the law) an “unnatural accompaniment” so pushing / carrying it isn’t allowed.

That said, trespass is a civil offence, not a criminal one and the most the landowner is allowed to do is ask you to leave via the “nearest appropriate way” which can include back the way you came. Any hint of threats or physical violence is a far more serious offence.

It’s worth reporting to the police but without witnesses or video footage, it’s unlikely that much will come of it. Even if the police just go round and have a word though, that might be helpful.

This is correct. It might be worth looking into making a claim, especially if the link would be useful. Even if a successful claim is unlikely, it’s free and will only cost your time, but has the potential to cause a headache for the landowner.

Sounds scary. In order to protect yourself from the violent people who have previously made threats to your person, next time, if you see them, jump on your bike and ride to cover the ground more quickly.

Whether there’s a law here is an interesting discussion but practically speaking kind of irrelevant. Some people are just arseholes who inexplicably hate people on bikes. Don’t sweat it.

As @funkrodent says – a bike is technically (by the letter of the law) an “unnatural accompaniment” so pushing / carrying it isn’t allowed.

No existing right != “not allowed” or illegal. Is a kite a natural accompaniment to a walk? No. Is some batshit farmer going to contest you taking your kite across their land? (Stopping to fly a kite would be a different matter, but not what we’re discussing here).

It’s really not a grey area, A footpath is a public place. To suggest then that a bicycle is an “unnatural accompaniment” you’re saying that cycling in a public place is unnatural. Is that what you really think the law says?

Report the incident to the cops, and then carry on what you’re doing.

On a slightly different note, regarding being pushed:

I was riding on a bridalway through a local farm when the elderly owner / worker drove a quad bike at me. I logged it online with the local police (chronological, factual, not subjective), the police visited the farm and then me at home.

No real outcome, but it hopefully made the guy aware that high risk behaviour wasn’t without repercussions.

Maybe you could log having hands laid on you?

“unnatural accompaniment” so pushing / carrying it isn’t allowed

You can carry, that’s well established, otherwise you are claiming a bicycle is a restricted item in a public space like a knife or a gun.

What is grey is whether you can push.

When it’s carried it’s luggage, when it’s pushed it’s transport

I’d definitely consider reporting to the police. If they’ve gone that far with you (actual violence) they may go further with someone else (actual physical harm).

These things can escalate over time. Help the next person and report IMO.

Sorry I was actually trying to quote the post by @crazy-legs from yesterday. Reporting the incident to the police is probably worthwhile, not least so there is a record of it.

Whether or not you think the law is unfair or unreasonable does not really change it. The only point I was trying to make was that if the op wants to do something to improve access, or to frustrate the landowner, they should make a claim for higher rights.

When it’s carried it’s luggage, when it’s pushed it’s transport

How would you categorise a suitcase with wheels?

I am saying farmers are a strange bunch not as in angry people like the thread just the people I have met over the years delivering to farms and driving around North Cotswolds.

Ah, Radford, now it makes sense…

How would you categorise a suitcase with wheels?

Or indeed, dozens of feet protruding from the bottom, and when annoyed many large teeth.

Well, I’ve done an online report to the police. See if owt happens.

I was hesitant to do it really, what with it being a their word against mine thing.
3 of them, 1 of me. They could easily say it happened the other way around unfortunately.
Hmmm. 🤔

Anyway, see what happens. I thought it worth doing just so there’s a log. Might have happened before, might happen again.

How would you categorise a suitcase with wheels?

How would you categorise a suitcase with wheels with a bike inside it? how would you categorise one of those ride on suitcases for kids?

Anyway, see what happens. I thought it worth doing just so there’s a log. Might have happened before, might happen again.

From the sound of their reaction, you probably aren’t the first person to encounter this behaviour. Logging your incident on its own may not get the Police to go out and have a word, but if your the latest report, or the first of several, you may have helped get the ball rolling.

I sympathise with farmers, they have to deal with some right idiots causing problems in what is their workplace, but that doesn’t justify taking it out on the next reasonable person who just comes along.

England’s access rights need a complete overhaul, but it needs coordinated action, not lots of individual wannabe heroes kicking off at individual farmers.

Cycling UK are one of few organisations where cyclists and lawyers converge, and they think that it is highly likely that a case defending pushing a bike on a footpath would succeed. Details on page 6 of this PDF

https://www.cyclinguk.org/sites/default/files/document/migrated/info/public-footpaths5ebrf.pdf

and they think that it is highly likely that a case defending pushing a bike on a footpath would succeed

Yeah I think some of the opinions of lawyers involved in ROW I’ve read, have argued that there’s a pretty good reason why organisations like the Ramblers haven’t chosen to take “John Mountain-Biker” to court to get a definitive answer.

an “unnatural accompaniment”

Jesus H Christ. I knew UK *ahem* English rights of way laws were batshit crazy, but the fact that you can’t push / carry certain things on a footpath is beyond comprehension for me.

I’ve known most of my adult life that British democracy is just a pretence, and that the feudal system never went away, but sometimes it still really shocks me.

Well technically it’s nothing to do with feudalism because anyone is allowed to become a landowner but yes it is daft.

However most people just don’t care. Move to South Wales if you like no-one gives a crap.

I’ve known most of my adult life that British democracy is just a pretence, and that the feudal system never went away, but sometimes it still really shocks me.

The Tooting Popular Front is alive and well!

Jesus H Christ. I knew UK *ahem* English rights of way laws were batshit crazy, but the fact that you can’t push / carry certain things on a footpath is beyond comprehension for me.

Oh yeah, it’s insane!
RoW in England is a mess of historical usages, mapping errors & corrections, landowner rights all wrapped up in an archaic, outdated, outmoded system that originally evolved centuries ago mostly to keep the plebs away from the landed gentry. It’s adapted very little since then to account for the vastly easier access to the countryside and people’s methods of getting about – the idea of taking a bike off-road has only really been around in “modern” usage since the early 80’s when the first MTBs started arriving on the scene (and yes, you can go back far further with Rough Stuff Fellowship etc but that’s up there with wild camping; a few hardy people do it but in such small numbers and with such minimal impact that it’s never worth bothering about).

Not sure I agree about it being wrapped up in the feudal system (plebs vs gentry). Essentially ROW in this country is a post-war concept following creation of the The National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. Look on any OS map about the extent of rights-of-way and we do pretty well given that much of this is privately ‘owned’ through historical concepts. There are other historical concepts that support RoW access, things like Inclosure/Enclosure and Tithe maps where parcels of land not used for agriculture (and therefore not liable for taxation) may be deemed to be a means of public access – like all those walled lanes you probably know of, that are marked as footpaths on the map.

However I agree 100% it’s messy, inconsistent and needs further reform at the ‘national’ level (Scottish model please) – local authorities who are tasked with classification and maintenance of the definitive maps are just too skint and disinterested to give it the attention it deserves given the huge societal changes since the 1949 act. CROW was the only significant reform we’ve had and that doesn’t help mountain bikers.

For anyone who isn’t aware, read up on the 2026 cut off date for the recording of rights of way using pre-1949 evidence. I’ll link to the BHS as they obviously have a vested interest in bridleways https://www.bhs.org.uk/our-work/access/campaigns/2026. There’s no way there will be major RoW reform before 2026 so it’s a worthwhile thing to pursue.

A suitcase on a public footpath in the middle of a farmer’s field is (I would imagine) quite clearly an unnatural accompaniment. People do not tend to go for walks in the countryside with a suitcase on wheels. Its also considered luggage which as pointed out above is luggage so quite clearly its a natural accompaniment… and someone said there is no grey area.

There is some text somewhere, I’m not sure if its from an actual case in law or just an example where they explain a man with an umbrella was prosecuted for trespass. The person in question had disrupted a bird shoot by flapping the umbrella and disturbing the birds. You’d think an umbrella would be natural but the argument was walkers tend not to use umbrellas as they tend to be impractical and so it was considered unnatural and therefore he was liable to prosecute.

a man with an umbrella was prosecuted for trespass

This is a slightly different issue, relating to the criminal offence of ‘aggravated trespass’ rather than the civil matter of trespass. Presumably the defendant was disrupting the shoot from a PROW, so they had to claim that an umbrella was not a natural accompaniment to prove the trespass part of the offence.

Be interested to see if the prosecution succeeded. Seems like a bit of a stretch to argue that someone who is in theory just walking from A to B on a public footpath should not have an umbrella with them vs a raincoat.

‘The bike = natural accompaniment’ is one of those things that really needs someone to test it in court.

The “unnatural accompanying” phrase I  think comes from a case in 19th C before bikes (as we know them today) were invented. Plus I think The DfT has confirmed as recently as the 90’s that you’re a ped if you’re on a path/footway and you’re pushing a bike.

The umbrella case is true (although 125 years old!)

Harrison v Duke of Rutland.
Harrison was standing on a footpath running through a grouse moor, raising and lowering an umbrella to disrupt a grouse shoot. The duke’s servants restrained him and the matter went to court. The court found his umbrella waving constituted trespass because he was not using the path to pass and repass but as a platform for his protest.

It wasn’t to do with an umbrella being a natural or unnatural accompaniment, it was to do with the fact that although he had every right to pass and re-pass along a PRoW, he was doing so in a manner designed to cause nuisance to others.

Jesus H Christ. I knew UK *ahem* English rights of way laws were batshit crazy, but the fact that you can’t push / carry certain things on a footpath is beyond comprehension for me.

It’s people’s interpretation

Sometimes people are strange

People with land and therefore a economic interest are strange with added £ incentives

That said, trespass is a civil offence, not a criminal one

Isn’t that about to change?

So far as this thread is concerned no. The changes relate traveling communities and for want of a better term, “trespass with motor vehicles”* there is no inclusion or intention for the bill to relate to ramblers, MTBer, equestrians or the like. Noise that it might is a brilliant distraction from the actual content of a wholly reprehensible bill.

*So if you like to park in non designated places in your camper van it might have a bit of an impact.

It wasn’t to do with an umbrella being a natural or unnatural accompaniment, it was to do with the fact that although he had every right to pass and re-pass along a PRoW, he was doing so in a manner designed to cause nuisance to others.

Exactly. Your right to be on a public right of way is actually pretty limited. You’re permitted to be there in order to pass from point A to point B. Almost anything beyond that can theoretically be construed as trespass. Flying a kite from a public footpath? TRESPASS! Stopping to sit on a rock and admire the view? MOVE ALONG PLEASE. Having a picnic? You MONSTER.

It’s obviously woefully anachronistic since the vast majority of footpaths in 2022 are used for recreation, not transport.

The CyclingUK statement/article up there is actually really good and interesting.

without having yet read through all of the replies, so apologies if someone else has mentioned it but many years ago as a law student I relied on a House of Lords finding from about 1901 that someone pushing a bike on a footpath was entirely lawful and that ‘the bicycle was merely an appendage to the pedestrian’ (or somesuch)

I’ll see if I can dig it out if not already provided by anyone else…..

they had to claim that an umbrella was not a natural accompaniment

Someone had better tell that bloke off Coast.

The ‘natural accompaniment’ of walking is whatever you need or wish to carry with you whilst walking, surely? I could have any number of things in my rucksack, couldn’t I? If I want to take say, a teddy bear so I can take a photo of it in some particular location, is that an offence? If I have purchased a tennis racket from someone who lives in the countryside do I have to avoid any PROWs on my walk home simply because I’m carrying a tennis racket? It’s absurd.

We should have a mass trespass where we walk FPs carrying ‘unnatural’ but perfectly benign accompaniments just to demonstrate how the law needs to be changing. And no-one would care one bit if we were carrying teddy bears, tennis rackets, bottles of perfume, envelopes, 13mm sockets, USB cables, wetsuits, or any number of random objects.

teddy bears, tennis rackets, bottles of perfume, envelopes, 13mm sockets, USB cables, wetsuits,

Thats a weird peek in to you inner thoughts there Molgrips, you must attend some interesting parties 😀

I would have smugly pointed put that I’m glad I’m in Scotland but we seem to have our share of high profile asshats trying to restrict access up here too.

crazy-legs
The umbrella case is true (although 125 years old!)

Harrison v Duke of Rutland.
Harrison was standing on a footpath running through a grouse moor, raising and lowering an umbrella to disrupt a grouse shoot. The duke’s servants restrained him and the matter went to court. The court found his umbrella waving constituted trespass because he was not using the path to pass and repass but as a platform for his protest.

It wasn’t to do with an umbrella being a natural or unnatural accompaniment, it was to do with the fact that although he had every right to pass and re-pass along a PRoW, he was doing so in a manner designed to cause nuisance to others.

Thanks for the correction.

I would have smugly pointed put that I’m glad I’m in Scotland but we seem to have our share of high profile asshats trying to restrict access up here too.

Only cos the Scottish Outdoor Access Code favours the public, and in its inherent simplicity come the opportunities for those with access to lawyers to make interpretations particularly on the words ‘sensible’ and ‘reasonable’.

The English equivalent were it ever to arise would look like it was written in conjunction with HMRC.

molgrips

We should have a mass trespass where we walk FPs carrying ‘unnatural’ but perfectly benign accompaniments just to demonstrate how the law needs to be changing. And no-one would care one bit if we were carrying teddy bears, tennis rackets, bottles of perfume, envelopes, 13mm sockets, USB cables, wetsuits, or any number of random objects.

Those to me are all natural, you would normally carry them if you had them about your person, normally you would ride a bike so having a bike and not riding it would be unnatural.

Wasn’t the pushing a bike = pedestrian something about a zebra crossing? I think that’s more applicable to pavements and not footpaths? Which considering how vague this all is I would expect to make zero difference.

@rhinofive – please do.

I’m going to print it out and laminate it 🙂