RoW question – is pushing or carrying your bike on a footpath legal?

Surely the answer is for lots of people to go up there and carry their bikes across the footpath. Not all at once, but separately. If he is set on assaulting anybody doing so, and all of these individual incidents get reported to the police then surely that is sufficient evidence to get an injunction keeping him away from that footpath!

what is the position with 'landowner or an appointed factor thereof' (or whatever it is) -ie anybody can say this when challenging you – but can you argue that without some form of identication etc that you could ignore them ?

As far as I can see the crank/brooks case was 1980, it would have to be a council that took it further as the legal system costs are beyond the individual people who fund it – mind you if another case reversed that decision that would be pretty serious ………

Although I previously posted differently, I don't think a "mass trespass" would achieve anything other than getting us a bad rep.

There have also been some posts about arguing the intracacies of the law with the landowner, defeating him with our unassailable logic. However my experience at this location was that a violent shove in the chest (reasonable force in ejecting a trespasser, I guess) proved to be pretty much the final word on the matter.

However my experience at this location was that a violent shove in the chest (reasonable force in ejecting a trespasser, I guess)

The thing is, you weren't a trespasser – at least not according to the most recent case law on anything similar. Far from sufficient as a defence against assault IMHO.

It is clearly difficult without the kind of knowledge that either Grittyshaker or the rights of way officer to adequately comment on this matter. The letter posted seems a fair statement of fact, indicating what options and courses of action are open to the council. If the route has always been a footpath and only a recent recreational need has caused use to happen then what he is saying is largely correct. The only area of hope would be in identifying evidence to show that when the path was first recorded as a footpath a mistake was made and higher rights had existed but were not known about or had been disregarded.

The issue of natural accompaniment is one that will take years to solve, it is unlikely any government will try to establish the matter through drafting legislation. The current case law is of low standing and there is contradictory case law. In order to get better case law will require two opposing parties willing to enter a legal dispute and who ever looses to have the nerve and money to take the matter to an appeal. Traditionally with appeal cases such as Rubenstein, Trevelyan and Godmanchester the appeal has been of such an important nature to walkers that the Ramblers Association are pushy enough and can see enough benefit to be willing to invest their limited funds in pursuing an appeal even knowing it could be lost.

For now the Ramblers seem willing to tolerate the uncertainty the meaning of natural accompaniment allows them and until walkers rights are seriously threatened by a restriction they will not be looking for a court fight for fear of loosing and getting a hostile decision setting them back. Cycling Organisations are notoriously absent from access based caselaw, which is unlikely to change given the increased costs of pursuing and particularly loosing appeals.

I think the most obvious thing threads like this continue to prove to me is that simply to ensure that riders have even a fundamental understanding of rights of way law above that needed by SFB, all the MTB magazines like ST should run more in depth serial features raising awareness of not only the law but also looking at how strategies for riders lobbying for better access could be more effectively managed and encouraging cyclists that spending to fund organisations that can help them get access laws favourably changed is as important as the thought of shelling out 3 times the amount you need to on a bottom bracket or headset with a sexy name on it.

My final position is that, given the grey area that exists around "natural accompaniment", my local authority have decided to protect the obscure interests of an individual rather than the reasonable interests of pedestrians pushing or carrying bikes. It looks so much like a decision could be argued either way and in this instance the local authority should have sought to protect the interests of a relatively harmless majority, particularly where so little harm can be demonstrated, where the footpath links two bridleways and where there is evidence that the path has previously been used by carriages (it has a gate, albeit always locked, at each end). The local authority have made me a trespasser in this case when they need not have done so.

From the top of my soapbox it looks a little like caving in to an assertive personality.

I won't be pressing charges for assault but I'll know where not to go for riding lessons or any other service the landowner might offer. I also know that I'm not the sort of person to push a much smaller person in the chest for wheeling their bike along a footpath to no-one's detriment. The landowner probably knows that he'll never entirely stop cyclists pushing their bikes on this footpath. I hope, for his sake, he's happy in sustaining such ill temper.

I'd advise all cyclists to get involved locally and nationally in access issues and to raise access with their local and national politicians this election time. Access laws, in England, are a hangover from the feudal system. They make serfs of the majority of reasonable people. It's time we moved on.

In the meantime, please take care at this location. It only takes a lapse of judgement on the landowner's part and people could be hurt.

grittyshaker – Member
My final position is that, given the grey area that exists around "natural accompaniment", my local authority have decided to protect the obscure interests of an individual rather than the reasonable interests of pedestrians pushing or carrying bikes.

Can the RoW officer be asked to explain what the landowners interests are?

From the top of my soapbox it looks a little like caving in to an assertive personality.

Or the assertive personality knows someone within the local council??

I won't be pressing charges for assault but I'll know where not to go for riding lessons or any other service the landowner might offer.

While I understamd that you accept you'd refused to do what the LO wanted, I can't follow why you're prepared to let the issue of assault go, next time he may well injure someone, appear in front of the local beaks, and due to his "previous good charectar" get away with it. At least go & report to the police, accept they may say you should not have been there, but they won't prosecute you for that. Leave it to the police to decide if the issue is worth following up.
Otherwise write to the local papers in a NIMBY style and explain briefly the occurence, omit anything that he could describe as libel (or is it slander??) but start a "whispering campaign" that this LO is not a nice person, avoid whtever projects he sets up in the future.

I'd advise all cyclists to get involved locally and nationally in access issues and to raise access with their local and national politicians this election time. Access laws, in England, are a hangover from the feudal system. They make serfs of the majority of reasonable people. It's time we moved on.

Agree with this, very much.

In the meantime, please take care at this location. It only takes a lapse of judgement on the landowner's part and people could be hurt

Take a big stick with you if you do decide to walk this footpath with a bike.

The reasons I'm not taking this further with the police are:

1 – that the landowner is supported in their reasoning by the judgement of the local RoW. Both these bodies would hold that I was trespassing, had refused to leave, and that reasonable force was therefore justified.

2 – this was the first of two incidents that same day. The second involved a motorist who, through an appalling right turn manouvre, forced me to take evading action during which my bike contacted his car. The halfwit pieshop then leapt out of his car and threatened to "f'ing flatten" me.

Both these incidents shook me up somewhat and I have rather a lot on my plate at present with other matters. Sometimes it seems better just to let things go.

I am still in communication with the RoW officer though and I hope to get an explanation as to why the council has made the interpretation that they have in this situation.

I really do think, at the very least that this 'pushing' incident should be reported to the police. At least it is recorded and logged on the system. Anybody else experiencing the same sort of behaviour should also do the same. Sooner or later the police will have to pay a visit.
Don't ring 999. Call West Yorks police on 0845 6060606.

Just trying to add some common sense to this (which may be impossible with some idiots), but what was his actual objection to bikes passing along a 200m stretch of his land? Is it possible to do harm by carrying a bike on your shoulder and walking as opposed to weighing 30lbs more and not having a bike with you? Did he reason his argument?

Would it be worth contacting this bloke in a mature letter and trying to open discussions with him without him wanting or being able to hit/push someone?

He pointed out some damage to a barbed wire fence which he claimed was caused by "you lot". He also claimed to have been threatened on his land. The concept of the harm I was causing seemed entirely lost on him. He simply didn't want me there. In his belief I was a trespasser.

Given that he refused to accept that I could carry my bike (even dismantled) it seems to me that he is simply keen to apply the most restrictive interpretation of the law possible. He is supported in this by the position of the local RoW officer.

Perhaps someone else could write a letter to him. I've had my fill of confrontation for now. Last weekend was actually a very depressing episode.

So he may just be trying to restrict as many people from the land as he is legally entitled. I suppose if he had the choice, he would close the footpath entirely. Not just a simple grudge with cyclists, just anyone trying to use 'his' land. It just so happens he can pick on cyclists and not walkers.

how's about this then?

Lords Amendment No. 35: After Clause 26, in page 28, line 10, at end insert new Clause "E": "Any member of the public shall, subject to any orders made by a local authority, and to any byelaws, have the right to wheel a bicycle, not being a motor vehicle, on any footpath."

…if the additional qualification is made that a bicycle can be wheeled along a footpath, the question arises whether a pram can be wheeled on a footpath or whether something else with four wheels can be pushed on a footpath, and so on. The position, broadly speaking, is that anyone can take anything on to a footpath, unless there is a byelaw saying that he cannot. How he behaves when he is on the footpath may be the subject of byelaws, or it may be the subject of Common law.

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1968/jun/24/new-clause-e

Max Headset – I'm afraid I've got to take issue with you on this, the "natural accompaniment" argument really is an outdated concept, the DPP vs Jones test of reasonableness is a far more up to date, valid interpretation of the caselaw and makes it more than clear that the rights which extend to a highway extend to any reasonable use which does not interfere with the primary right to pass and repass – therefore anything from having a picnic to pushing your bike would be categorised on a test of reasonableness, which would be a different burden based upon the exact circumstances (pushing your bike along a footpath that joined two bridleways would clearly be more reasonable than one that was not, the same would apply to a dead end bridleway turning into a footpath at the parish boundary)

edit – retro83, thats an interesting one I have'nt seen before, could make an interesting "pepper v hart" discussion if it ever did get to court…

It's legal positions and professional opinion like the ones quoted above (thanks retro83, max_headset and others) that I hope to draw to the attention of my local RoW Officer.

It seems unlikely though that the council would change their mind as they appear to have painted themselves into a corner.

More concerned about legal challenge from landowners than from user groups perhaps?

@ Zulu-Eleven – though I was unaware of the more recent case law the point you make chimes exactly with my position. I was doing nothing which could be considered unreasonable.

The problem, however, is that the local RoW department supports the landowner in his assertion that a bike is not a "natural accompaniment" and that in pushing my bike I am therefore a trespasser. For the moment there seems no way round this and therefore I have not been to the police claiming assault.

How can we get the local RoW Officer to change their interpretation of the law and thus their support for the landowner in making their unreasonable restriction? The RoW Officer does use the caveat "generally" in describing their position.

I'd love some qualified help on this.

Anyone fancy meeting up to decide a campaign strategy?

@ retro83 – thinking the restriction on carrying/pushing bikes may qualify as an "order made by a local authority"

get 3 or 4 mates to push their bikes along this footpath, when the landowner kicks off and hassles you, report him for blocking the footpath.

you have no need to mention the bikes – they ARE a natural accompaniment.

(you wouldn't have to tell the ROW office that you were wearing socks, or had some change in your pocket – there is no difference)

this grumpy 50d deserves all the grief we/you can give him.

Gritty, ask for the specific details of the order then?

I had 2 mates with me at the time. We were unpreapared to be confronted in the way we were. My mates were not prepared to dig their heels in.

The landowner gave every impression that he'd resort to increasing levels of violence if I persisted. Given the size of the bloke there could only be one loser on the day. With my wedding in a fortnight I wasn't prepared to risk a broken nose.

For the record, I went back to the location on my own, to speak to the guy a couple of hours after the incident on saturday morning. I was scared, but determined not to be intimidated. He wasn't around. It was then I noticed the "no carrying/pushing" part of the signs and began to wonder whether my position was as solid as i'd previously thought.

Good luck to anyone in persuing a direct action approach. I hope I can make some headway through the RoW Officer before I go down that route (no pun etc. etc.)

@ retro83 – I'll keep posting the responses of the RoW officer to this thread.

Cheers gritty.

A local landowner recently contacted the Councils Rights of Way Section regarding problems he was having with people cycling on a public footpath he has crossing his land. The landowner informs me that he has no issue with pedestrians legitimately using the public footpath but that he objects to the route being used by cyclists (including pushing/carrying).

FOI request for details of discussions between council staff and landowner?

@ Dave – Thanks. I may yet make an FOI request but for the present the RoW Officer appears to have been quite open about their dealings with the landowner.

Interesting that the landowner claims to have had problems with people cycling but that he seeks to address this by prohibiting pushing/carrying also. On what grounds?

There seems to be a risk, from the council's point of view, that it may appear that some undue persuasive influence may have been brought to bear on them in making their interpretation.

While I agree with much about the discussion about improved access laws, and also while I think his 'assault' was over the top, basically it is a footpath on his land and he has the right to say who and what can go on it above and beyond the statutory allowance.

Interesting that the landowner claims to have had problems with people cycling but that he seeks to address this by prohibiting pushing/carrying also. On what grounds?

Because I'm sure as we all know, if he's not around we'd all try and poach the 200yds. If he is, we argue 'till we're blue in the face that we intended to push / carry all along. I'm sure he's also had his fair share of confrontations and hence he's just trying to detail exactly what his position is. Easier to ban bikes, full stop, than even suggest that under some circumstances they might be allowed.

Gritty, I think Dave's advice of an FOI request is a good one.

I'd be inclined to go back to the ROW office pointing out that by his own admission this is a grey area, however there is adequate evidence that you may be within your rights and that unless and until someone can demonstrate categorically otherwise you are of the clear opinion that pushing a bike on a public footpath is legal, and that it is the councils legal duty to protect you in the enforcement of those rights, particularly where the landowner has already assaulted you and you are fearful that it may occur again. I'd also point out that the status of a route as public footpath is without prejudice to any higher rights that may exist, and that nowhere within the law has it been adjudged that a pedal cycle is not a 'natural accompaniment' and that argument, if it ever even applied, has been superseded by the test of reasonableness laid out within DPP Vs Jones, which clearly states that:

The public’s right of access to the highway was not restricted to the right of passage and matters incidental or ancillary to that right. Rather, the public had the right to use the public highway for such reasonable and usual activities, including peaceful assembly on the highway, as were consistent with and did not obstruct the general public's primary right of passage along the highway.

@ theotherjonv – "he has the right to say who and what can go on it above and beyond the statutory allowance".

Are you sure?

Wouldn't that mean that any landowner could prohibit any user regardless of rights of way?

I'm sure that some people have ridden the 200 yards and they are almost certainly trespassers. He may have been threatened also and there are laws to deal with this too.

I am just keen to find out why, when a "grey area" presents itself, that the council have interpreted this wholly in favour of the landowner.

he has the right to say who and what can go on it above and beyond the statutory allowance"

Gritty – no, he's correct in this – however the question is what exactly does the statutory allowance permit – and that answer is to be found in the quote above from DPP vs Jones!

I am just keen to find out why, when a "grey area" presents itself, that the council have interpreted this wholly in favour of the landowner.

Because very, very few PROW officers actually understand ROW law,(which is a goldmine of contradictory caselaw and practice from both statute and common-law over the past few hundred years) and hence simply quote verbatim out of date chapters from the blue book.

Ah, got you both!

You're saying that the landowner can extend access beyond that normally permitted.

Thanks

I’ve sat on the sidelines and watched this one with interest (and the other similar threads about the same stretch of footpath) as this is a path I know well and used to ride on a regular basis some years ago, as my mate tended to bring his dogs on a ride and it avoided the main road.
Gritty I’m full of empathy for you it sounds like a ride from hell and I’m guessing something you did not need. I have a great deal of respect for your decision not to purse this. I would say that from reading this thread that the landowner acted within his rights and within the law. Morally I feel that he is very wrong in his attitude and behaviour. It is a shame that the ROW officer has taken what seems like an un-enlightened response and hopefully your correspondence and highlighting recent case law may change his position, as Bradford council do seem to be bike friendly otherwise.
I think that the various calls for direct action will only inflame the situation and make any future access even more unlikely. This is a battle that as a group we need to walk away from. The rational behind this is that this is a short and uninspiring piece of track, that while provides a link between two bridleways, is no great loss to mountain biking (thought maybe convent to some), and the alternative is far better. I think as a group we may need to choose are battles carefully [casts a wistful eye across the Aire Valley & Ilkley moor]

"Because very, very few PROW officers actually understand ROW law,(which is a goldmine of contradictory caselaw and practice from both statute and common-law over the past few hundred years) and hence simply quote verbatim out of date chapters from the blue book."

And also because they are more persuaded by the legal and literal "strong arms" of landowners above user groups?

user groups

If there was ever a group of users without a proper, formal "group" I reckon it's MTBers.

I believe BradMet are promoting a permissive bridleway alternative route in the area in an attempt to pour oil on troubled waters. What the ultimate aim is I don't know.

@ breakneck – it's certainly been my experience that CBMDC are not unfriendly towards cyclists. I agree that direct action is not a good idea also. Not a great trail, I admit, but the footpath does allow a rewarding and short loop of Harden Moor.

Once I've bottomed out the reasoning for the decision making in this case. I would like to explore the opportunity to make joint representations to CBMDCs RoW Officer in order to get a better deal more generally in the district.

Agree about picking battles. A "braod front" approach is probably better.

Ah, got you both!

You're saying that the landowner can extend access beyond that normally permitted.

Yes, he can, but thats not relevant here – the important factor is what legal rights do you have on a footpath, nowhere does it say you have the right to push a bike, but, equally important, nowhere does it say you don't either… what the law actually says is that you can do anything that is reasonable. given that this is a link between two bridleways, I'd argue that pushing a bike is therefore reasonable.

What you could also point out to the PROW officer is that its clearly ridiculous that there is a footpath linking the two bridleways, and why was it not considered for upgrading in the PROWIP, if necessary via use of a S26 PPCO, having regard to the extent to which the path or way would add to the convenience or enjoyment of a substantial section of the public!

You're right Cheeky. Collective organisation (beyond getting a round in and sometimes not even that) is not a strong suit with bikers.

Did some digging with SingleTraction some years ago. Keep up the good work. I may be back.

Excellent, Zulu-Eleven.

Yes. I understand the lack of relevance.

Thanks for all the advice. I doubt a practical resolution to this particular case will be found anytime soon but I may be able to influence the PROW officer to think differently.

Sorry if this sounds a bit silly, but could your drag your bike along the "footpath"?

@ buzz – On the one in question? Not without risking a shove in the chest.

somewhere up there got mentioned a couple of times an alternative permissive bridleway

– if a reasonable route to take to link a loop up then seems to me that the local council and ROW people have tried at least to be constructive around the problem and should be congratulated

the situation is regretful – one tactic I've used is to tell the landowner you will push for a change in status based on historical use and incorrect classification and that could mean motorbikes and 4WDs so its better if he ignores you but i suspect this is too far gone

Zulu-eleven you argue your point well but I find if you can say this I have to question your capacity to take make such a sweeping statement

Because very, very few PROW officers actually understand ROW law,

you are presumably inferring your own knowledge is greater than the majority of us, could you indicate what credentials might lead me to believe you could have a professionaly superior view of rights of way law.

Are you in chambers with Stephen Sauvain, George Laurence or Edwin Simpson who is a clear fan of DPP,, how many rights of way officers do you know or how much do you deal with them?

Fundamentals here are that grittyshaker is not claiming knowledge awareness of the existence of higher rights on the path so cannot be saying he in fact has a right, bit more the case he does not feel the landowner has the right to heave him off when he is walking with a bike. His photo shows a path with features not incompatible with the way having higher rights so I am not going to say it has no higher rights.

DPP v Jones is more of help in dealing with users exceeding the right to only pass and repass, such as stop to take a picnic particularly where in the past a landowner might object, it was always in principle incorrect that a person who suddenly taken ill or feint when walking a path could not lay down to rest until they got to the nearest road which some landowners would make you believe. It does not justify a trail rider pushing a motorbike on a bridleway anymore than pushing a bike on a footpath or a farmer droving cattle on a bridleway across another farmers land where the right is not recorded in the definitive map statement.

I can say from experience most rights of way officers have a considerable understanding of the law with very few relying on the walkers blue bible and are more inclined to refer to the RWLR or Sweet and Maxwell when dealing with the complexities of law the blue book is only a handy place to find relevant circulars and statutory instruments listed in one small book, They indeed often know substantially more than the solicitors and counsel that landowners wheel out to challenge authorities when they exercise their duties.

Former IMBA Northern England rep, half a dozen DMMO's, couple of public enquiries and liaison on multiple applications, working in liaison with BBTrust, CTC and BHS. used to deal with ROW officers pretty much weekly
and, in my experience very few of them know much about the intricacies of the beyond their bread and butter work, such as bridge law or whether the surface of a ford forms part of the right of way or whether the PROW stops and begins again on the other side :-) There's no doubt that there is the experience and knowledge out there, but unfortunately most individual PROW officers have a fairly narrow remit and band of experience – more often than not individual counties departments repeat the same narrow cut and paste interpretation of the law from past PINS circulars as their "definitive" statement of what the law is.

as you well know

where the right is not recorded in the definitive map statement.

is a useless proposition, as it is irrelevant as to the existence of the right, it only records for posterity that the right exists.

Despite your assertion that DPP vs Jones is about people stopping for a picnic, you're no doubt fully aware it was actually about people using a PROW for an organised large scale protest, and that the legal ruling from it is more than clear that anything is permitted, as long as it is reasonable given all the individual circumstances, the judgement itself does not seek to limit the application of the rule in the way you profess.