get orfff moy laaand

we need 200 t-shirts printing up with this on & a mass walk across this blessed footpath wearing said t-shirts. Would he get it? I doubt it. But it might be fun…

I do congratulate the local authority in the provision of a permissive bridleway which serves a useful purpose but it is not a replacement for the right of way in question.

Just to clarify a few things:

Knowing that the footpath was "hot" I was deliberate in not riding my bike. It was not my intention to antagonise the landowner by exceeding what I understood were my rights.

At the point I was challenged I was certain that I was within my rights to push my bike so I pressed them as forcefully as I could, shouldering my bike and attempting to get past the landowner.

At that point he pushed me in the chest and it was then clear that he was prepared to apply physical force in preventing me from progressing. As the landowner had told me that an off-duty police officer was exercising their horse nearby I then called "police" loudly and a woman approached who denied she was a police officer. I would have telephoned 999 had I been able to identify my location by name at that point.

A shouting match ensued. It was clear he wasn't going to budge and we departed on unpleasant terms; "tosser" said I, "arsehole" said he and made remarks about my bravery in retreat. I returned towards him briefly, remarking on his comparitively large stature and on how that reflected on his bravery.

A couple of hours later, once I'd cooled down, I returned to the site to investigate the situation more closely, perhaps to speak to him again (from the safety of the bridleway) more calmly and to demonstrate that I was not to be intimidated.

It was then I noticed that the signs also prohibited pushing and carrying and I was then unsure as to whether I was in the wrong and actually considered how I might make an apology to the landowner.

When I got home I posted this topic.

As demonstrted by the differences in interpretation arising from max headset and zulu eleven, it is clearly not straightforward!

Thanks all, however, for your comments of support and information.

Thanks for the cv Zulu-eleven some pedigree agreed, AK has been a close personal friend for a long long time and I am sure you are well versed with his own views on the wisdom of cyclists simply pushing their luck on access by relying on the weakness of trespass laws which he also believes will all end in tears when the lawyers and law draftsmen turn up.

I am not convinced you have come up across enough of a depth of rights of way officers to be able to get away with that statement 3 swallows dont make a summer. AK does seems to indicate the there are large variations in capability east of the Pennines but it certainly does not replicate across the rest of England and Wales.

Having handled more than a few DMMO's PPDOs, two House of Lords Appeals and a number of injunctions in order to either keeping paths open or the map correct, I have never lost one outright and if we're betting about DPP vs Jones is good enough to allow higher rights users to occupy public highway for which they fundamentally have no lawful right to be it is a lot different to a rabble of protesters using a footpath to protest about a nuclear base or animal testing labs, I do not think as a defence it would even start get you out of the shit if you find yourself pushing a bike across one of Madonna's fields or up the driveway of the O'Keefes and they are home when you do it.

If you want to encourage riders to take self action thinking the council will be forced to turn on the landowner, the danger is more real that the landowner could slap an injunction on those who turn up, cost them a small fortune and stop the rest, unless you can find evidence of forgotten historic rights on the path I would do as the Rights of Way officer advises and use the other permissive route.

I agree on much of what you're saying there Max – at the same time, I think I'm being clear that the Jones argument couldn't being used as a carte blanche, but there are certainly a number of routes where it would apply as a valid argument, the point being that its more reasonable on some routes than others…

I think that the way forward is for riders to put pressure on councils to take into account their abilities and duties under the ROWIP's – political pressure means a lot – my experience of many councils is that they are remarkably reluctant to use the catalogue of powers available to them, for example spending years on endless fruitless negotiation rather than S26'ing a route that is clearly in the public interest (for example a major Sustrans route, now held up for years due to a short missing link)

I do not think as a defence it would even start get you out of the shit if you find yourself pushing a bike across one of Madonna's fields or up the driveway of the O'Keefes and they are home when you do it.

Exactly what shit is that you would need a defence against? We are still talking about the civil law of trespass here aren't we? The one which you can only be sued for the loss the landowner occurred?

More to the point, exactly what business is it of the ROW officer adjudicating on the law? Surely that's something for the courts if the landowner thinks it's worth the expense of taking it there – I'd love to see the ruling on how much loss had taken place when somebody had walked down a footpath carrying a bike rather than carrying a large rucksack. Or indeed when the landowner is attempting to defend himself from a charge of assault.

er because original poster asked

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

did you read much or just jump to your conclusion?

if, however, a landowner met a walker using the path carrying …. property that might be wheeled and even be capable of propulsion then as long as it does not touch the surface of the right of way then the landowner should have no reason to consider challenging the walkers rights.

I would think his business is his business usually, do you tell bike mechanics to mind their own business when answering a question about mechanical issues..I never adjudicated, and you must have never come across landowners getting injunctive relief to get people off their land they don't want there.. it happens even if you don't want to hear about it.

er because original poster asked

Yes, but the point I'm making is that the ROW officer isn't the definitive source on this issue, and I don't see what difference it makes what they say (if they'd supported his view, that wouldn't be a reason to assume everything was OK either). I'm not really sure why the OP is so interested in his POV.

Your Madonna et al line is a strawman – how exactly is a landowner going to get injunctive relief to prevent somebody doing something where it can't be proved they don't have a right to do it? A good parallel in untested law here is with water access. Despite landowners thinking they own the river access and paddlers continually "trespassing", the only recent case of damages awarded was a derisory amount (and involved other factors), whilst nobody has ever managed to bring an injunction to prevent such use. Given the similar lack of definitive law on pushing bikes on footpaths, the idea of somebody getting an injunction to prevent this is surely a joke?

Aracer I’m not sure that the parallel with canoeing is whole accurate, from memory (and I’ll admit that is many years since I was involved in such access negotiations) land ownership relates to the river bed and not the water that passes over it, so in effect so long as you don’t touch the bottom your ok – the real issue was with entrance & egress to and from the river and crossing the land to get too it – a futher complication was the ownership of fishing rights for stretches of river and what amounts to bigoted prejordice against other uses.
Again though this is a legal grey area. One thought the British Canoe Union does have a network of river officers who negotiate, lobby & represent the intrest of canoeist for a given strech of river – is there a cycling paral , or would this be a way forward

I've not read what the answer should be but using my common sense if you are pushing it you aren't riding it. You hardly get into trouble for pushing a bike on the pavement now do you?

Hora – to save this discussion going round in another circle you'd probably be better reading the rest of the thread. Not that the answer will be all that clear.

Is there evidence that the footpath is actually used by walkers? Just wondering as if it is not, can't the landowner get the ROW closed after a certain time without use, could they be going along this train of thought to prevent ALL access to their land?

Votchy there is no period of which no use of a public right can count to it's ceasing to exist, that only applies with private easements and is the reason why landowners confuse themselves over the issue. Once a highway always a highway, is the maxim and a path can only be lost through the undertaking of a legal act or an act of god that might remove the land on which it runs.

The fact is much to the chagrin of most landowners the Highways Authority of your council has a quasi judicial function and is the one first faced with determining if whether the conditions that give rise to a highway coming into existence under Highways Act 1980 S31 – 20 years use, or will consider an application made under the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 to have a highway added to or amended onto the definitive map. Unless an order made by the council is objected to then whatever decision it's officer came to, takes effect. Even if objected to it is decided by a planning inspector the decision goes nowhere near any courts until after the event has occurred.
The NFU and Country Landowners continually bang on about it and say Rights of Way Officers are biased towards rights users and a quick google on Marlene Masters should turn up the kind of rubbish they spout on about impartiality. Most Rights of Way officers do not sail to catch the wind of public opinion they deliver considered actions based on all the evidence and material facts and if they do not do so they will leave the authority open to public challenge,. They are so boxed in by Law, Government Circular and Case law that random decisions are rare.

Breakneckspeed makes a most relevant observations on why this process is failing off road cyclists. If Grittyshaker was a rambler there would be a whole local footpath committee out on the warpath now wanting to defend his rights. Cyclists seem to be increasingly content when this happens to all go and suck their thumbs on a forum cajoling each other into acts of disobediance rather than tackling the problems. One of these is most cyclists prefer to do their own thing and not belong to any organisation either because they cant be bothered or they cant find one they agree with, the other problem is we have too many bodies. In the last few years I have been asked by IMBA to investigate rights of way issues that were negative to cyclists interests in parts of Wales. Colin Palmer did an excellent job then to take on the council by challenging the orders they made however, he is only able to do this where they are legally obliged to consult with him and his resources to do it are very limited. Day after day cyclists are having problems unlawfully restricting their access and they come to nothing when the riders don't know what to do or they don't or can't be bothered to belong to any group that might help them. If any Rambler from anywhere in the UK has a problem, such as that reported, whether they be a member of the RA or not they can report the problem to the local, Welsh or London office any one of three local ramblers will be in touch with the local rights of way office and until they accept that no action can be taken, which is rare, they will not let the matter rest until it is resolved. This process is uniform across every county in England and Wales. The BHS are not that far different nor are the motorcycle trail riders or 4×4 users the only group absent from having such a network are cyclists. I believe in some counties you might find IMBA or the CTC active but they are so diluted and underfunded they have difficulty doing anything and since most cyclists with problems belong to neither they only represent a small group of riders. I believe all cyclists should belong or be willing to fund a cyling body to protect their rights and that there should to maximise effectiveness be only one body. The current BC, CTC, RSF, RTTC simply sees to much members money going to support duplicated organisation overheads that could be better spent on a single UK wide cycling body the most forceful lobbying group securing better outcomes for cyclists than we are getting now and that could still represent the individual interests that exist.

MaX – thanks for clearing that up, wasn't sure of the facts but glad someone is. Fully agree with your comments re cyclists and cycling bodies, I believe we are the biggest bunch of apethetic countryside users going and considering the cross spread of occupations and salaries that seem to be spouted on here you would think we could use some joined up thinking 😯

This is the one of the largest mtb forums, surely we could become a representative body to address these issues? I am a current IMBA member but I believe their contribution is a drop in the ocean due to lack of members/funding and regional representation.

Aracer I’m not sure that the parallel with canoeing is whole accurate, from memory (and I’ll admit that is many years since I was involved in such access negotiations) land ownership relates to the river bed and not the water that passes over it

Well that's how I'd interpret it, but not how most landowners see it. As I say, this is another disputed area of law, where a dodgy interpretation was made back in the 19th century and everybody now refers to this interpretation as gospel (ignoring the fact it has no real basis and is just the opinion of one person who didn't do his research properly).

Certainly a good parallel from the point of view that canoeists are another downtrodden group who have to resort to "breaking the law" to get reasonable access. Yes the BCU have lots of regional river officers, but until very recently all they've been doing is negotiating what amount to "permissive paths". From the point of view of being able to lobby somebody on the local council (as walkers and horseriders can), then there simply isn't that mechanism in place – though the interpretation of many if not most paddlers now is that where there is water there is a right of passage for boats, so it's not really clear how the council could adjudicate apart from take one side or another.

The thing is, what canoeists are now doing by taking the law into their own hands is effectively just going out and riding those footpaths, rather than worrying about the legal details. The obvious difference being that we think we do have a right to paddle rivers, whilst I'm quite happy to accept we have no right to ride footpaths. Though to come back to the original point, I consider we do have a right to push bicycles on footpaths (or at least to carry them – I'm sure there is case law that when you pick up a bicycle it becomes a parcel), so the situation there is a very similar one of users disagreeing with landowners and unclear law.

Anyway, the issue we do have as cyclists is that we do have a lot less rights than walkers and horseriders – that's something fundamental about the system where those groups have paths belonging to them whilst we're just there on sufferance. The CTC do actually do rather more than many on here think in terms of lobbying etc., but you only have to read a bit of hansard to realise the ignorance they're up against. I read quite a bit of the latest debate where they were doing ROW stuff (CROW?), and the minister dismisses the idea of removing the "racing on bridleways" law on the grounds that it's not unreasonable for other users not to have bikes racing past them, totally ignoring the fact that we can (and do) race on FPs (the MTBOs on Cannock Chase allow you to ride on FPs, but BWs are OOB because of this ridiculous law), whilst you can (and they do) race motor bikes and cars on BWs.

The question being, given the basis of the law, what exactly do you expect a regional rep to do about us not being allowed to ride on FPs and clarify the issue about pushing bikes on them? The only people they can lobby who would make any difference are the ones in Westminster who've proved not only that they have no interest in doing so, but that they have so little interest at all in us that they can't even be bothered to do proper research when such issues are introduced. Or am I missing some function relating to keeping BWs clear (which isn't what this debate is all about)? I can't even see much point in lobbying for upgrading of paths in most places, as we have no rights in this regard – if the horseriders aren't interested it's not going to happen (there are a few exceptions such as in mid Wales where Colin and Jerry have successfully got stuff reclassified, but these were routes that were very wrongly classified).

suck their thumbs on a forum cajoling each other into acts of disobediance rather than tackling the problems.

in my experience this is enough as the notional lack of right is just that, an idea, with no physical manifestaion or enforcement

Latest from local RoW officer.

Extract from most recent communication:

"I appreciate you and a number of other cyclists are disappointed by the decision of the Council in this matter. I am though going to ask my colleagues in our Legal Section to consider the entire issue of 'natural accompaniment' in the hope that we can offer some clear guidance on this matter. However as you will appreciate by the comments on the Single Track World Forum this matter is not just a local issue and may take some time to fully resolve".

I'm actually fairly heartened by the response I've had from the Council.

@ SFB – plenty of physical manifestation in my experience!

For the record I cannot recommend that anyone goes near this location with their bike.

Maybe ask him why the route has not been considered for upgrade in the ROWIP, and whether he'll consider adding it to the list for future review?

'natural accompaniment'

Are they worried about 4×4 or MX riders suddenly leaning against their vehicles when caught and saying 'mate I was only pushing it'?

Seriously confused.

haven't read all this but makes note never to live in england, it's all a bit pathetic 🙄

I rode past the gate that Pennine posted a picture of on the first page of this thread, and any signs that had been there have been removed.

http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/wheeling-your-bike-on-a-footpath