+1 oh except for their use by Farmers in Biathlons of course

I think some of the "humour" and other intemperence is a bit misplaced given the circumstances.

Years ago, when a young impressionable lad, I did a week's work experience with the Royal Artillery.

During that time I got to fire an impressive range of weapons from the British Army's arsenal of the day:

FN SLR
Stirling SMG
GPMG
Bren gun

Being a thoughtful lad, the feelings I experienced using these weapons (especially the Stirling SMG, like a kind of deadly hosepipe) and the gleeful look on some of my colleagues faces, put me off guns for life.

Education of men in the destructive potential of weapons of all kinds, together with increased emotional literacy and awareness of ones options when life seems hopeless seems far more likely to result in a reduction in these sorts of very rare but tragic events.

One more thing – the context in which we are making our comments here is tragic and our position is privileged in the light of the seemingly random nature of some of Bird's actions. Deep sympathy to all those involved.

Because everyone else has an iPhone?

Greasing the pedal threads sorted the creaking on my Orange Five after I'd originally suspected and replaced the BB.

How're the curtains holding up?

C'mon

Lib Dem for a fairer, more thoughtful and less confrontational future. I think.

Please see your GP jabbathehut. I wish you all the best.

While obtaining permission/complying with planning regulations can be a pain for developers large and small; it's those same regulations that help us to maintain distinctive regional landscapes and urban environments.

Imagine the situation if anyone could build whatever they wanted wherever they wanted. In general I think planners are a force for good. But then I would say that. I trained as one.

2nd nickjb

Talk to the local planning department and they'll be able to give you an indication as to how likely they are to grant planning permission.

If you're minded to sell it, obtaining outline planning permission for a dwelling (agreement in principle) may increase the land's value.

Good luck with your little corner of paradise.

Similar velvet rut situation. Teaching IT and business studies in a further education college. Wanting to do more work outdoors and teach in a broader context.

3 years ago I started an FdSc in Wildlife and Countryside Conservation (out of interest mainly, but also with half an eye on an alternative career) and reduced my work in FE to 4 days in order to:

a) have more time to do my course (especially as there was a work-based learning component to it)
b) investigate other employment avenues.

Now I have three jobs. Occassional work as a field teacher for a major environmental charity, occassional outdoor instructor with my local authority (these mainly with primary school children) and the old job. The outdoor work has really helped put my old job in perspective and "loosen the ties" somewhat. As a bonus I've also found myself teaching some outdoor education in my college. Now it's a question whether to shift the balance in favour of the first two areas by "dropping" another day with my old job or to make a complete break.

This might be an option for you? Reduce your commitment to your old job gradually in order to test the water in a new one. Your employer might even keep your full-time job open if you decide you don't like it. You may be doing them a favour in the current climate?

Ooops. Double post.

ule bee after yur nitting badge next Moses

Not so very different from one of these –

http://shortcummings.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/slanket.jpg

You'll also be after one of those giant slippers you can get both feet in, I wouldn't wonder.

It's perhaps inevitable that a dog left so long alone and so often will present problems.

Think of the life you'll gain as a result of humanely relieving yourself of the burden your dog has become. Perhaps admitting, to yourself, that managing your dog is something you can't do alone and seeking its re-homing or, as a last resort, destruction is the only way you'll rescue some quality of life for yourself.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

@ 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.

"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?

Ah, got you both!

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

Thanks

@ 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.

@ 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.

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

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.)

@ 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"

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

I have updated the parent thread (here – http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/row-question-is-pushing-or-carrying-your-bike-on-a-footpath-legal) with a response from the local RoW officer.

Since the council support the landowner in making his interpretation of the law, I was trespassing and therefore the landowner was probably justified in pushing me in the chest; using reasonable force to encourage me to leave as I attempted to get past him carrying my bike.

The point now is to try to persuade the council that their interpretation is incorrect.

I won't be going up there with my bike (pushed, carried or otherwise) until this position is resolved. It's not worth the risk.

For the record – I did refuse to leave and the landowner pushed me in the chest as I attempted to carry my bike past him.

So, here's what my local RoW officer said:

"Many thanks for your recent email, please note below my comments on this matter.

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).

The landowner has erected signs in an attempt to clarify the status of the footpath and has asked if the Council can assist him by formally signing the route in question as a public footpath. Signs the landowner originally put up have been vandalised but I have been informed that his new signs have included the contact details for the Councils Countryside and Rights of Way Section. The Council will formally sign the route as a public footpath and will clarify signage on an alternative permissive bridleway route in the area in due course.

The route in question is recorded on the areas Definitive Map as being a public footpath as it crosses land he controls. As a public footpath the route is open to pedestrian users only. A cyclist who rides on a footpath commits trespass against the holder of the land over which the path runs. Such action would be a civil matter between the cyclist and the landowner and the landowner may use 'reasonable force ' to compel a trespasser to leave, but not more than is reasonably necessary.

With regards pushing/carrying cycles on a public footpath this appears to be a somewhat grey area of the law. Generally we would comment that a bicycle is not seen as a natural accompaniment of a user of a footpath, and that to push (or carry) one along a footpath is therefore to commit trespass against the landowner. Generally to take a pram, pushchair or wheelchair (if practical) and to take a dog (on a lead or under close control) are classed as being natural accompaniments. We do have powers under the Road Traffic Regulations Act 1984 to make regulation orders and bylaws to make the offence a criminal act but this is not something we have yet considered.

As far as I am aware the 'natural accompaniment' clause has not been tested by case law but I am aware of the Crank v Brooks case and other similar judgements that appear to indicate that pushing a cycle on a pedestrian facility is being regarded as a pedestrian.

As things stand the route is recorded as a public footpath and it is unlikely knowing the sites history that additional rights have been gained (through use as this landowner and the previous owner appear to have challenged most cycle users). We have asked the landowner if he would be willing to allow the route to be used by cyclists/horse riders, but he has indicated that such use would conflict with his own use of the land.

I trust the above information is of use but please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of further assistance in this matter.

Regards

Darren Hinchliffe

Rights of Way Officer"

In summary, CBMDC support the position of the landowner in restricting all access to this footpath involving bikes; ridden (fair enough), pushed or carried. It seems, as alluded to by mAx_hEadSet, that the council are far more concerned at the compensation that may be payable to the landowner for erosion of their property rights than the legitimate dismay of a reasonable majority at CBDMC making this interpretation of the law. This, to me, is especially disappointing as Mr Hinchliffe makes specific reference to case law that regards people pushing bikes as pedestrians. A position that seems incompatible with CBMDC's interpretation.

I have written to Mr Hinchliffe expressing my dismay and to ask clarification on the circumstances under which it would be "generally" OK to push or carry a bike on a footpath. In this instance, other than for the objection of the landowner, it would seem like a prime candidate for exemption from this restriction.

In the meantime, loathe as I am to advise bikers to avoid this area, I feel that for anyone to attempt to visit this location with a bike is to risk injury from the landowner who will make strenuous physical efforts to prevent people from pushing or carrying their bikes along this public footpath. Go there at your own risk.

I have had a very prompt, but not very encouraging, response from Bradford's RoW Officer which I will post in due course.

In the meantime, thanks for all the supportive and informative comments. It was quite a tough weekend, partly as a result of this confrontation, and you've all been helpful in allowing me to vent if nothing else!

Cheers

Sorry, posted to wrong thread

@ teagirl – AFAIK you are doing nothing wrong by pushing your bike on a footpath. The landowner thinks different. Your call.

@ Tiger6791 – No. Not Harvey.

@ TJ – The push in the chest wouldn't be assault if I was trespassing. It'd be reasonable force. Was upset and angry at the time though. It's just I'm not sure I was trespassing. This is what I'm trying to find out.

Have told the RoW officer what happened. If they tell me that the signs are not theirs or that the prohibition on pushing and carrying is a local interpretation of the law. I'll think about challenging both the local authority to change their interpretation and/or the landowner for assault.

I should say. Please, everyone, be careful at the location. The landowner is a physically assertive and capable person. It only takes him to have got out the wrong side of the bed one morning and things could be worse than a shove in the chest.

I had to turn back.

@ John Drummer – You're right about the alternative permissive route but the route I was using, including the 200 meter push/carry on the footpath makes a satisfying anticlockwise of circuit of Harden Moor which, as far as I know, I'm entirely within my rights to complete. We'll see.

@ Big-n-daft – Thanks for the pointer towards the CTC. Not so daft in the end!

PS – Will post an alert about this location on the Riding forum.

@ Simon – Agree. I'll await the outcome from the RoW.

If I'm told that this is a local interpretation of the law by Bradford Met's RoW Dept. I'd be inclined to challenge it. As it appears to be in the interests of one person's objection rather than the reasonable enjoyment of the many. It may be that Bradford Met are under more pressure from the landowner to yield to his preferred interpretation than they are of ours and I'd like to change this if there appears scope to do so.

Agree. Not a mass trespass. A mass legitimate use. A large group of people pushing/carrying their bikes (in part or dismantled) from both ends at the same time could indeed be interesting.