ACPO guidlines a few years ago (I'm a bit out of date) suggest that whilst cycling on footpaths of footways is an offence, officers should look at the manner of the cycling.
I sometimes gently cycle along pedestrianised areas near me, at walking pace and haven't ever been stopped, even when police are near.
They could offer an FPN, which 'could' be contested in court as to be in contravention of ACPO guidlines.
Naturally, it's never got that far 😉
ACPO doesn't even exist anymore.
I trust all of us do, discreetly and courteously, never in large numbers and not in tourist hotspots on bank holidays.
You haven't come across the Bogtrotters have you, they seem to make a point of riding in the opposite manner even if better legal trails exist to their destination (ok, I don't think they are rude but you get the gist)
As far as I was aware, it's down to the landowner to prove that you set out to deliberately cause damage in a civil matter...they can ask for your name and address, so as to take further action, but you don't have to give it.
The police can ask for your details, and you have to give them, but they are not allowed to tell the landowner, as you haven't committed a criminal act.
Footways, on the other hand, are illegal to ride on, I think?
Observe the main rule of life, and don't be a twunt.....
What are the legal ramifications if there is a No cycling sign at the start of the footpath?
a proper legal one (red circle) then there is a bylaw in place. These only tend to be alleyways and parks. Illegal to ride and enforcable. A hand written note I suppose means you don't have the landowners permission but it'll just be a civil offence and the worst you'll get is shouted at. Cheeky trail rules apply.What are the legal ramifications if there is a No cycling sign at the start of the footpath?
What are the legal ramifications if there is a No cycling sign at the start of the footpath?
About the same as one saying "trespassers will be prosecuted" 😆
"The police can ask for your details, and you have to give them"
You don't. Unless you are arrested or being reported for an offence.
Ah, I thought I'd get something muddled up!
It's ok. I think we're all learning stuff today. 😀
You haven't come across the Bogtrotters have you, they seem to make a point of riding in the opposite manner even if better legal trails exist to their destination
Err, no they don't.
What are the legal ramifications if there is a No cycling sign at the start of the footpath?
a proper legal one (red circle) then there is a bylaw in place.
citation regarding red circle sign and a bylaw being in place? not trying to be arsey, but there's one near me i like to use from time to time and i'd like to know which bit of law i'm breaking. 😀
a 'no cycling' sign on a footpath indicates that the landowner does not accept cycling - it's the equivalent of the landowner or their representative being there to tell you that. so if you continue, it's trespass.
if there is no sign then for all you ( and anyone else ) know cycling might be quite acceptable on a designated footpath.
as mentioned above footway alongside a carriageway different rules apply.
I do, because we're allowed to.
Those blokes I saw descend off Hollins Cross yesterday do.
The Peak District is a marvellous place to ride footpaths. You can play 'dodge the Peak Park Ranger', who always seem to be hiding behind a rock waiting for rebellious mountain bikers cross their path. And if you come across any of the red-sock brigade who feel like having a rant, you can give them a long and detailed history lesson about how their access to the hills was won by people breaking the law by trespassing on land they didn't have access to, and you are merely following in that noble tradition.
I had a lovely (!) gent tell me it was illegal to ride footpaths in the peak, there was a specific law against it. It seems this has been alluded to in this thread but I can't find anything. A search actually reveals a thread from here about 4 years and asking much the same question with no conclusive answer.
He wasn't to amused when I suggested he couldn't see the irony in him getting access rights because of a trespass and at worst we were trespassing... It got worse when he accused us of damaging the trails and I asked him if he'd levitated to where he was, because if not he was also damaging the surface.
I'd love to know if it REALLY is against the law to ride footpaths in the peak.
I ride all sorts of paths, trails etc because if I didn't (a) the majority would be overgrown or hidden by the land owners round here, (b) my local off road rides would consist of about 5 bridleways separated by 10 miles of nothingness.
I steer clear of SSIs for obvious reasons but the rest really is fair game if riding sensibly.
And if you come across any of the red-sock brigade who feel like having a rant, you can give them a long and detailed history lesson about how their access to the hills was won by people breaking the law by trespassing on land they didn't have access to, and you are merely following in that noble tradition.
This,
Round Northumberland it is more about the suitability of the path than the designation on the map - never see anybody anyway.
It got worse when he accused us of damaging the trails and I asked him if he'd levitated to where he was, because if not he was also damaging the surface.
That one really ****s me off. If ramblers really gave a toss about erosion they'd stop pursuing their hobby and take up darts or something. By far the vast majority of human-caused erosion is a result of the huge volumes of walkers stomping up and down popular tourist routes. Damage by cyclists, even if quantitatively the same per person (which I doubt) is still a vanishingly small factor when compared to the damage caused by the hundreds of clodhopping ramblers out on the hills for each person on two wheels. Their argument-from-erosion is illogical and hypocritical, just like their argument-from-trespass.
But then, those arguments are not really the root of the problem that red-socks have with MTBers. It's the same problem that arsehole motorists have with road cyclists (see also: you-don't-pay-road-tax and other related lies). The problem these people really have is that they don't like anyone who isn't exactly like them, and they don't want to share their toys with the other kids. They're just selfish, nasty gits. There's no point engaging with them, it's a waste of breath.
Ride on and ignore them - hopefully by doing that and raising their blood pressure slightly we'll accelerate their deaths and get them off the planet that little bit sooner... 😉
And if you come across any of the red-sock brigade who feel like having a rant, you can give them a long and detailed history lesson about how their access to the hills was won by people breaking the law by trespassing on land they didn't have access to, and you are merely following in that noble tradition.
Yep so true .. over 90% of my rides is footpaths! 😆
Big heavy machinery has already f@#%ed up some of our beautiful natural peaks paths with yellow brick roads and they have the cheek to say we are causing erosion!!! 😆
"clodhopping"
😥
Another Northumberlander here. I tend to avoid them on Sunday rides but quieter times go where ever a rider won't cause damage to path or livestock.
When in the Lakes I usually avoid footpaths altogther because the paths I'd like to ride on get so busy
The erosion thing is silly. If people stopped walking and riding on the hills all trace of any human activity would be gone in a couple years. And it's not like the grouse are that bothered.
It rather depends on where I am.
When I'm at home (Epsom), I do make a point of avoiding them, but that's because I've been able to map out a 20+ mile XC route from home which is all bridleways bar a couple of miles of unavoidable (ie, there's no footpath either) quiet roads, plus when I'm looking to more trails riding rather than XC, Swinley & Bedgebury work well with the kids, plus there's all that lovely right to roam on Holmbury & Pitch Hills, so it's a bit academic, and I just figure why risk upsetting anyone when there's so much to ride without needing footpaths?
If I'm down at my parents' in Ilminster, on the other hand, it's a totally different matter! For such a rural county, Somerset is staggeringly bereft of bridleways unless you're going to stuff the bike in the car and head over to the Quantocks or Exmoor. There are literallly just a few hundred yards dotted around here or there, most of which seem to be either dead ends, or have a footpath as the only connection at at least one end. Down there, what choice is there?
One thing that does surprise me on this thread is some of the early comments about "tossers in 4x4s" churning up byways where they have a perfectly legal right to be whilst arguing in favour of riding on footpaths, where we arguably don't! Yes, a 4x4 can bugger up a byway, but over the years, so many byways have seen motorised traffic banned in recent years that they're only now legally allowed to drive on something like 2% of unsurfaced tracks, so it's hardly surprising that they get churned up, is it?
Think of it from the other perspective. If the Provisional Wing of the Ramblers' Association succeeds in getting motorised traffic completely banned away from the tarmac, you'll be freeing up a lot of time for the narrow minded bigots to come after mountain bikes instead, so live and let live, I say! 😀
If everyone stopped walking or riding on the moors there would soon be no grousedazh - Member
The erosion thing is silly. If people stopped walking and riding on the hills all trace of any human activity would be gone in a couple years. And it's not like the grouse are that bothered.
Err, no they don't
yes they do, Stoodley Pike or Darwen Tower on Sunday? sound familiar?
PJM1974 - Member
I once had a mad old bat pull off the road and drive her car fifty yards up a bridlepath so that she could flag me down and quiz me about where I might be riding in ten minutes time
Maybe she was into dogging and fancied a rendezvous with you?
no citation, sorry. Only based the fact that it isn't illegal normally. Only pavements next to a road have an automatic illegality. That's why there are sometimes additional signs on alleyways, housing estates, shopping centres, etc. Obviously for this to be the case the sign needs to official and to get an official sign you need a bylaw as it wouldn't be illegal otherwisecitation regarding red circle sign and a bylaw being in place?
The erosion thing is silly. If people stopped walking and riding on the hills all trace of any human activity would be gone in a couple years.
Well quite. It's just something that grumpy sods use as an excuse to be grumpy at us. And it's not as if having eroded paths actually causes any real lasting damage to anything anyway (unlike, say, driving 100s of miles to climb up the same hill as all your other grumpy old rambling mates). In 99% of cases if we just let paths wear down any old how it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference to anything other than the view (although obviously if there's rare plants or something then that's different).
clodhopper - Member
"clodhopping"
😥
Sorry! Nothing personal. 😉
Now living in Ireland where there don't seem to many bridleways i regularly ride f/p as marked up local high points n hills n rarely get anything other than " well done to you for riding up here" i could n't do it .
Back in wales would get few dog walkers moaning but that was usually on shared cycleways n usually those who can't seem to keep their dog under control.
End of day use discretion and be polite ,then they don't know what to do .
I do it coz I like that clunk, clunk noise when you cycle over a loose paving slab
I trust all of us do, discreetly and courteously, never in large numbers and not in tourist hotspots on bank holidays.
Courteously - Yes, always. You have to be considerate and pleasant to everyone you share the trails with.
Discretely - No, why should we hide under cover of darkness?. This is the bit of "Cheeky Trails" etiquette that I just can't get on with.
Tourist hotspots - why-ever not, assuming you think you've got as much right to be there as they have? Just remember to be courteous and don't go hooning down a trail that a family are walking up!
If you want to set a KOM, yes then out-of-hours is the time to do that, but pootling down a super-cheeky trail shouldn't be an issue.
You haven't come across the Bogtrotters have you, they seem to make a point of riding in the opposite manner even if better legal trails exist to their destination (ok, I don't think they are rude but you get the gist)
Trouble here is that I can count on one hand the number of bridleways that are worth riding in preference to a nearby footpath.
yes they do, Stoodley Pike or Darwen Tower on Sunday? sound familiar?
Very, and why-ever not, given the provisos above around being nice.
I took a small group through an NT tourist hotspot yesterday in the middle of the day. We spent a long time waiting for walkers and chatting with them. They recognised our considerate behavior and there was no friction. One pleasant dog-walker even smiled and said "you'll enjoy that bit"...
We did.
It's only the older generation that ever seem to register any disapproval. I admittedly had one older gentleman yesterday comment to me as he passed (we'd stopped and got off the trail to let him pass). "I don't think this is a bridle-path" he said whilst smiling.
"I know, it's daft isn't it" I replied, "those pack-horses must have been in bother all the time".
He nodded and laughed.
This is just what happens when you're nice about it.
A while back me and Mrs Hound were chatting to one of those faux-coppers (PCO?) who, bless him, was trundling around on his police-issue Specialized. He recommended some routes out at the Ashley end of the airport (MAN) and when I pointed out they were all footpaths and not bridleways, he just laughed and said, well no one's bothered.
Mrs Hound was my witness M'ludd.
Ecky-Thump - Tourist hotspots - why-ever not, assuming you think you've got as much right to be there as they have?
You can be there but you do not have a right to be there.
That's the difference between a footpath and a bridleway, with a bridleway you DO have the right.
Otherwise I generally agree with your post.
podge, I wasn't referring to a narrowly defined legal right.
That kind of thinking what got us into this situation. 😉
More a philosophical right and wrong
I do, I just am very aware that there may be a pedestrian around every bend and they might be cross and have a big stick!
Interestingly enough Saturday's local ride involved a cheeky trail or two that was literally littered with branches the odd small tree etc etc, some of which were pulled off nearby trees and we're obviously living up until the point the nimby ripped them off.......like they would stop a fat bike at full tilt 😆
The Malvern Hills Conservators perpetuating the [url= http://www.mbr.co.uk/news/code-conduct-produced-tackle-unruly-mountain-bikers-malvern-hills-340008 ]'It is illegal to cycle on footpaths'[/url] line or is there a bylaw?
Yep.