footpath access

Father Faff

FREEDOM!

realnumber 1

Some of the best bits of downhill/single track I know are on footpaths and I'm not about to stop using them
Very rarely come across anyone and if I do as long as your polite it usually isn't a problem.
I would go as far as to say that I have help clear some paths back to there former glory by riding down them enough times

Coppicer

realnumber 1 wrote:

Some of the best bits of downhill/single track I know are on footpaths and I'm not about to stop using them
Very rarely come across anyone and if I do as long as your polite it usually isn't a problem.
I would go as far as to say that I have help clear some paths back to there former glory by riding down them enough times

One day, whilst you are flying down your chosen footpath, you may run over a bloke walking up. What are you going to do then ? Your insurance won't cover you because you are riding illegally, his health insurance will pay for him to recover but his insurance company will be looking to get the money back from someone, even if he doesn't want to sue you. They'll chase you, and if you can't pay they'll chase the landowner for not putting up stiles to stop cyclists. It's a mess, cyclists need to protest against these laws, get them changed, then make sure they have 3rd party insurance.

realnumber 1

What insurance :oops: ?? Any how 99% of the footpath trails I ride are moorland and you can see a mile or woods and the best paths in the woods probably haven't seen a walker in years.
I'm 31 now and rode up to my late teens and then again or the last 4 years. Never once have I been close to running someone over

Blundell

Regardless of whether anyone thinks they know better or otherwise, the law is the law and until it changes we have to abide by it whether we like it or not.

HaHa... damn good one... if in doubt get off and carry your bike. That way you're well in truely in the grey area of the law.

dave_hill

valheru wrote:

Just because its a law doesn't mean its correct, there have been any number of laws that have been challenged in this country and there by removed or changed. If you do not challenge these laws they will not be changed.

You are quite correct of course.

But there is challenging a law and there is flouting it. Whilst a law is in place, it must be abided by until such time as challenges get it changed.

I think that 70mph is a stupid speed limit on a motorway. But I don't drive at 100mph because I think its stupid. I stick to 70mph and will continue to do so until challenges to the existing law get it changed (which of coure will never happen).

valheru wrote:

The law on bicycles on footpaths is a joke anyway, with most towns and cities re-classifying lots of pavements for bikes and pedestrians. Most other countries in the world do quite well without this law.

You're getting footpaths and pavements mixed up. Different thing altogether. Cycling on a pavement (i.e. a footway running paralell and/or adjacent to a road) is illegal and is a criminal offence. You can be cautioned, fined and/or imprisoned for doing so.

valheru wrote:

Can you explain the reason why a bike should not ride on a track used by tractors, with a public right of way?

Haven't you been listening? If it's a public bridleway or public byway, you can ride on it. If it's a public footpath, you can't. Simples.

You could argue that there's no reason you shouldn't ride a bike on a motorway, or runway 1 at Manchester Airport. After all, they're wide enough. But (and get this) THERE IS NO PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY FOR CYCLES ON EITHER.

valheru wrote:

Any reasonable minded person would agree there is none - therefore it should be challenged

And therefore, as a reasonable-minded person, you should make that challenge, but continue to abide by the status quo until your challenge is succesful and the law is changed.

valheru wrote:

If everyone held the same view that its a law so thats it, then women still wouldn't be able to vote!

And that's the beauty of a democratic society. If you want to bring a challenge to the existing law, then you have a legal right to do so.

But I'll bet you don't.

You mean they let them out of the kitchen to vote?????

MattC59

This is quite simple really.

The track is on private land, therefore the land owner can use his track to drive his vehicles down.
The footpath is on the track, therefore public access is limited to access on foot, as per the ROW act.

This is always the case, even out in the wilds the land is owned by someone. There may be public access and even if there is a track, if it is designated a footpath, you only have access rights on foot.

Footpaths along the side of roads, pavements, fall under highways regulations, not the ROW act. It is an it is illegal to cycle on a pavement and you could be prosecuted as such. In reality, unless you hit a pedestrian, a policeman is only likely to tell you to get off and push.

You can be sued for trespass on private land if you are not adhering to the designated rights of way, or there are no rights of way. Trespass is a civil offence, so you can only be sued, however, if any damage is caused, then you can be prosecuted for damage to property.

Hope this makes sense,

Cheers.......... Matt

robertpb

There is a good reason why more footpaths are not reclassified as bridleways, there has been many a plan to do so.

It's cost, a bridleway has to be a minimum width, so in some places this would involve moving fences, cutting down trees, stronger bridges etc.

Its access has to be changed as well as signage, plus on top of that maintenance is more expensive.

This all comes out of the local councils budget, unless the treasury stumps up some monies.

So the first place to get things changed is to convince the powers that be to fix a budget for the project.

The winter months are coming, longer hours stuck in doors, time to write to the local MP with some constructive ideas or anybody else who will listen.

Dee Jay

The original proposed legistlation for public rights of way did not allow for cyclists to use bridleways either, it was only after lobbying by the CTC that the final Act of Parliament allowed cyclists to use bridleways. Remember that at the time of the legislation mountain bikes did not exist.

The other issue with cycles using footpaths is the level of provision, whlst it is reasonable for a walker to cross a field boundary using a stile that wouldn't be the case of someone with a bicycle.

As a walker and a cyclist on a personal level I prefer that the two levels of provision are kept seperate, there isn't a lot worse than being on a narrow footpath when people on mountain bikes come down where there's little room to get out of the way (that's happened a few times to me and my dogs on the Worcestershire Beacon).

Best wishes

Donna

teulk

Honestly i dont see a problem, if your knowingly entering someones private land and they request you to abide by their rules - well its their land, their rules so do it..........how simple is that ?

RhysPeters

I think that cyclists should be able to use footpaths (I don't mean pavements) in England and Wales. It makes no sense for our access to be so widely restricted while residents of other countries (e.g Scotland) enjoy such wide and obviously workable system of access.

The argument of bikes damaging the tracks makes no sense to me when I've seen far more damage caused by walkers and horses than I ever have bikes.

I therefore feel no need to abide by this law and regularly ride on footpaths. As long as you act courteous and polite to walkers there seems to be no problem. I have been challenged by walkers both on footpaths and bridleways even after slowing down and greeting them. I think the small majority of ramblers that do protest, just like to in force their own self importance and they will always find something to gripe about (I'm not being prejudiced, being a walker myself).

As for

I think that 70mph is a stupid speed limit on a motorway. But I don't drive at 100mph because I think its stupid. I stick to 70mph and will continue to do so until challenges to the existing law get it changed (which of coure will never happen).

I think that's going off track a bit. I think the repercussions to breaking the speed limit and riding on a footpath are completely different. People are able to judge the danger of things for themselves it's not as simple as the right or wrong side of the law.

I think that something must be done to change the law, but in the meantime I will continue to ride responsibly on footpaths and would not discourage anyone else from doing the same.

Dee Jay

RhysPeters wrote:

I therefore feel no need to abide by this law and regularly ride on footpaths. As long as you act courteous and polite to walkers there seems to be no problem. I have been challenged by walkers both on footpaths and bridleways even after slowing down and greeting them. I think the small majority of ramblers that do protest, just like to in force their own self importance and they will always find something to gripe about (I'm not being prejudiced, being a walker myself).


I think that something must be done to change the law, but in the meantime I will continue to ride responsibly on footpaths and would not discourage anyone else from doing the same.

Mmm so as long as I feel I drive responsibly it's ok to drive a Hummer on a footpath (I know an excessive example) that is a logical extension of your argument - which is you will only obey those laws you are in agreement with.

I'm afraid it is this sort of attitude that is likely to bring about more restrictions on where we can ride, rather than increase the opportunities!

dave_hill

RhysPeters wrote:

I think that cyclists should be able to use footpaths (I don't mean pavements) in England and Wales. It makes no sense for our access to be so widely restricted while residents of other countries (e.g Scotland) enjoy such wide and obviously workable system of access.

I'm all with you on that one, but the fact remains that in England and Wales, at present, it is illegal to do so.

RhysPeters wrote:

I therefore feel no need to abide by this law and regularly ride on footpaths.

Well in that case you're a pecker. Ever heard the phrases, "it only takes one bad apple" and "tarring us all with the same brush"?

I could say I don't feel like abiding by laws which prevent us from carrying firearms in public. I couldn't really complain if I got nicked for doing so though, could I?

RhysPeters wrote:

As long as you act courteous and polite to walkers there seems to be no problem. I have been challenged by walkers both on footpaths

...and rightly so...

RhysPeters wrote:

and bridleways even after slowing down and greeting them.

In which case the law is on your side and they have no reason to challenge you.

RhysPeters wrote:

As for

I think that 70mph is a stupid speed limit on a motorway. But I don't drive at 100mph because I think its stupid. I stick to 70mph and will continue to do so until challenges to the existing law get it changed (which of coure will never happen).

I think that's going off track a bit. I think the repercussions to breaking the speed limit and riding on a footpath are completely different.

You're missing the point completely. I'm not talking about the repercussions of the act, I'm talking about the principal.

There's a lot of laws I don't like - but unless I'm prepared to challenge them, I put up with them.

RhysPeters wrote:

I think that something must be done to change the law, but in the meantime I will continue to ride responsibly on footpaths and would not discourage anyone else from doing the same.

Well that's on oxymoron then - it's illegal to ride on public footpaths but you're going to keep doing so responsibly????!!!

Top and bottom of it is, people who knowingly ride on public footpaths are too bloody lazy, arrogant and selfish to bother finding places where they can ride legally.

It's symptomatic of the whole system - I can't be bothered finding out what's right and wrong because I might have to engage my brain, so I'll just do my own thing and bollocks to the consequences and how it affects everybody else.

Mrnorris

How easy would it be to request a footpath be upgraded to a bridleway?

bails87

I think getting a footpath changed to a bridleway is a major PITA and unlikely to succeed. I think rather than turn all footpaths into bridleways, it makes more sense to open footpaths to cyclist, with regards to height of overhanging branches, bridge strength etc, a rider and a massive horse are more of a problem than a cyclist, who is virtually the same height and width as a walker. And the etiquette of passing walkers on a footpath should be no different from passing them on a bridleway....slow down/stop, be polite and get out the way if they're walking towards you, if they're going the same way a friendly hello and excuse me if its sensible, if not then wait til you can get past.

And Dave_hill I don't think it's down to laziness, I've pored over local maps for hours, but I live in an area with miles of (deserted) footpaths and virtually zero bridleway, or bits of bridleway only accessible by footpath :? So to be on the safe side, I'd have to take my bike apart and wrap it up so that it's a "parcel", then unpack to ride 30yards of bridleway, then wrap it up and carry it along the footpath to the road :roll:

My "long" loop purposely goes to the nearest bit of bridleway, its a 25 mile round trip for 300 yards of bridleway and I live in a very green suburb, within 10 minutes of getting on my bike I can be in the countryside, I'm just not allowed on the green and brown bits!

RhysPeters

Mmm so as long as I feel I drive responsibly it's ok to drive a Hummer on a footpath (I know an excessive example) that is a logical extension of your argument - which is you will only obey those laws you are in agreement with

I'm sorry, I think I've put my argument across on this very badly. To clear things up what I was trying to say was that I don't have an adverse effect on other users of the footpaths and so feel no need to stop riding some trails which complete my local loops. I most certainly didn't mean to say if you don't agree with a law then just ignore it.

You're missing the point completely. I'm not talking about the repercussions of the act, I'm talking about the principal.

So what your trying to say is on principle every single law in this country should be treated as equally important to obey??? This obviously isn't the case, if everyone obeyed the laws of this country to the T, then I'm afraid the UK would just grind to a halt.

Top and bottom of it is, people who knowingly ride on public footpaths are too bloody lazy, arrogant and selfish to bother finding places where they can ride legally.

That is in no way the case, and if you honestly believe that to be the truth then I think it may be time to climb down off you high horse and give it a rest for a while because it obviously must be quite tired by now.

Well in that case you're a pecker. Ever heard the phrases, "it only takes one bad apple" and "tarring us all with the same brush"?

I totaly disagree with that, 95% of the people I meet while out I exchange very friendly greetings with and act as courteous as possible. I'll often stop and talk with walkers and like to think that I might in some small way improve the view of walkers. If there's a very small minority that occasionally feel the need to point out I shouldn't be there, I don't feel that I'm destroying the reputation of mountain bikers. I think these people have made up their mind on us a long time ago.

MattC59

I'm not going to be specific here, but christ, there are some morons on here....... and also some well constructed intelligent answers.

I would say 'Morons, you know who you are', but I'm guessing that you have no idea ! I'll leave it to others to point you out

rikk

The offroaders abided by the laws, worked within the laws and where promised by the government that everything would be fine after the all the reclassifications.
What happened? we got totally shafted and most greenlaners where the nicest most conscientious group of people you could hope to meet.
The only way to get footpaths opened up is to use them, not using them and sitting around hoping one of bike specific groups will fight the cause will get us nowhere.

I'm quite happy using footpaths, BUT, I'm always polite and if needed will always stop and let people pass, ie if they have kids/dogs with them.

Walkers/ramblers are always up in arms about their precious path but do NOTHING to maintain them, I'm always out keeping them passable, and even more so when greenlaning but the people who are meant to use them are quite happy to let everything get overgrown to the point it's impassable them moan they can't use it.

And to the person who mentioned driving a hummer down a footpath, first...offroad they are pants so it would certainly get stuck and secondly yep, you could also land a plane on one but I think most of us are actually trying to be realistic

Oh yea, as above the same goes for horse riders, they rip bridleways to bits and make them totally impassable by anyone else but do they do anything to help or repair their damage....nope.

clwydian_rider92

The problem is that the majority of places in England and Wales are far more accessible than places in Scotland.

I would like to see the same system as Snowdon on footpaths - open from 5pm - 10am in summer. And also maybe footpaths be shut off to bikers in winter while the weather isn't great and there is likely to be more erosion.

Often where I ride walkers stop and argue about me and other bikers about cycling on bridleways :?

robertpb

Quite a bit of the farmland surrounding my farm has been bought up and planted with trees by the Forestry Commission.

These are all small parcels of land surrounding London, part of the CO2 sink.

The interesting thing about these is that all the paths are for walkers and bikes, but the horses are restricted to a few paths.

This an interesting development as it means that someone made the decision that a bike is not a scary thing.

Always amazes me when I come upon a large group of walkers or runners how they scream bike as though a lion has arrived on the scene.

Ocrider

I'm all for civil disobedience.

The laws around footpath use will never change on their own. The only way that this will ever happen is if there is a very large visible presence of MTBers on footpaths. You never get anything changed by sitting on your 4rse and typing on a keyboard.

scotto

robertpb wrote:

Quite a bit of the farmland surrounding my farm has been bought up and planted with trees by the Forestry Commission.

These are all small parcels of land surrounding London, part of the CO2 sink.

The interesting thing about these is that all the paths are for walkers and bikes, but the horses are restricted to a few paths.

This an interesting development as it means that someone made the decision that a bike is not a scary thing.

Always amazes me when I come upon a large group of walkers or runners how they scream bike as though a lion has arrived on the scene.

lol at lion comment, I love it when they grab hold of their children like the big bad wolf is also on the scene, even when i have slowed doen to 2mph, some dog wwalkers are the same, but always glad when they hold alsations cos alsations hate bikes.

rich_e

I ride on Footpaths around where I live in Hertfordshire, in most cases, I don't see how there is any other option to get from A-B, or across a wood etc...

I'm not going to do anything stupid though, if its a path with not much visibility ahead and there are likely to be walkers, I'm not going to flying down it with no regard for my speed.
As others have mentioned, I tend to find that a lot of the mixed use trails, such as Bridleways are always churned up to hell, or full of water due to horses and off-road/farm machinery.

What annoys me the most is the attitude of some other people. A lot of walkers are quite good, and will move out the way to let you past. even on a foot path. Occasionally I find some who are a bit up their own arses about right of way. For instance there is a bit of singletrack in a wood near where I live (it's not an official footpath or trail so no civil laws effect it). I was climbing up it on the uphill section and a group of walkers were coming down. The majority of them all stepped to the side so I continue the climb, except for one woman, probably in her 60s, who wouldn't move. So I had to get off my bike, and push the rest of the way up, just because she wants to get on her high horse and can't see the sense to just stand to walk off the side of track for a couple of seconds.

Another one that sticks out in my mind is the people that tend to try and 'Police' their area, I'm sure you've seen it to. There is an old woman who stands around outside her house in this one village I sometimes go through and she flags down cyclists and tells them not to use the footpath, even though there is no other way around. Another guy has a bridleway running past the outside of his house, once while going past, he shouted at me and demanded that I walk past his house, rather than ride. What the hell! He is the one who bought a house next to a bridleway, and I don't see how I am effecting him at all.


On another note, there is a farm near me where the public footpath runs up a hill though a field owned by the farmer. It's an official council footpath, however last year I turned up one day to push my bike up the hill after going through the gate, but the farmer had put up loads of electric fences, doing something with his sheep. There were no access points to get to the path and across out the field. I presume this is illegal?

bails87

Rich_E wrote:

she flags down cyclists and tells them not to use the footpath
.....Another guy has a bridleway running past the outside of his house, once while going past, he shouted at me and demanded that I walk past his house, rather than ride. .....

On another note, there is a farm near me where the public footpath runs up a hill though a field owned by the farmer. It's an official council footpath, however last year I turned up one day to push my bike up the hill after going through the gate, but the farmer had put up loads of electric fences, doing something with his sheep. There were no access points to get to the path and across out the field. I presume this is illegal?

Well at the end of the day, you can't ride on footpaths so she's right to be telling you not to.

The guy can't make you walk on a bridleway any more than you can tell people on the pavement to hop past your house.

And yes it is illegal/against the rules. It is the landowners repsonsibility to maintain the footpath, and he shouldnt block it/plough it/build fences across it etc

Anonymous

Dee Jay wrote:

there isn't a lot worse than being on a narrow footpath when people on mountain bikes come down where there's little room to get out of the way (that's happened a few times to me and my dogs on the Worcestershire Beacon).

Donna, I envy you if you really don't know of anything worse than that.

It's like others have pointed out, a mountain bike doesn't really take up much more space on a path than a walker. So if you're struggling to let a biker past, then surely you'd also struggle to let another walker past as well?

rich_e

Well with regards to that woman, it was more a case of the first time I ever went through the village, I wasn't sure where I was going. So when I got the woods on the edge of it, I stopped to look at my map.

It was while doing so that she came over to have a moan about cyclists, and how they were messing up the footpath (Which at the time I wasn't even that close to the entrance too).

You are right that I shouldn't be using footpaths. But what I'm trying to say here is that at the time I was on a road, and does this woman not having something better to do with her day than stand outside her house and have a go at cyclists before they have even done anything wrong!

Anonymous

We get crazy holidaymakers screaming at cars to slow down on A-roads over here :roll:

Just because YOU decided to take your family on a nice walk along a very dangerous, very busy, un pavement-ed A-road, doesn't mean that everyone should slow down to 15mph. What it actually means is that you're an idiot. :roll:

Hmm, sorry, had to rant.
Back on topic..........

Dee Jay

yeehaamcgee wrote:

Donna, I envy you if you really don't know of anything worse than that.

It's like others have pointed out, a mountain bike doesn't really take up much more space on a path than a walker. So if you're struggling to let a biker past, then surely you'd also struggle to let another walker past as well?

To be fair the path in question is a very steep zig zag one down the side of the Worcestershire beacon with a very high and steep drop, and in this case yes the difference between a bike and another walker is significant, as the only place to pass at all is where the path turns. So not only was it inconvenient it was also quite dangerous!

delcol

On another note, there is a farm near me where the public footpath runs up a hill though a field owned by the farmer. It's an official council footpath, however last year I turned up one day to push my bike up the hill after going through the gate, but the farmer had put up loads of electric fences, doing something with his sheep. There were no access points to get to the path and across out the field. I presume this is illegal?

And yes it is illegal/against the rules. It is the landowners repsonsibility to maintain the footpath, and he shouldnt block it/plough it/build fences across it etc

karma, is a cool thing it may be illeagal but so is riding on a footpath so if certain members of the public turn a blind eye to this law,.
why should the landowner (farmer) stick to the law,..

what is the difference in you choosing to ignore the law and the landowner ignoreing it to..

Anonymous

delcol wrote:

what is the difference in you choosing to ignore the law and the landowner ignoreing it to..

He said he was pushing his bike up the hill not riding. :roll: