footpath access

13»

Comments

  • delcol
    delcol Posts: 2,848
    yeah but is that legal to be pushing a bike on a footpath,..? :roll: :roll:
    www.bearbackbiking.com

    http://www.youtube.com/user/MrDelcol#play/uploads
    hd vids
    http://www.youtube.com/user/topasassin#play/uploads
    http://www.vimeo.com/user2514116/videos
  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Posts: 79,667
    YES.
  • alfablue
    alfablue Posts: 8,497
    delcol wrote:
    yeah but is that legal to be pushing a bike on a footpath,..? :roll: :roll:

    Surprisingly NO, a bicycle is not considered to be a "usual accompaniment" on a footpath, and therefore cannot be legally pushed, or ridden. "To push (or carry) a bicycle is, therefore, to commit a trespass against the holder of the land over which the path runs" (source).
  • grumsta
    grumsta Posts: 994
    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.

    You do know that cyclists are supposed to give way to walkers?
  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Posts: 79,667
    How is pushing a wheelchair along a footpath fine, but pushing (or even carrying) a bicycle is not?
    Are there specific rules about what you can wear as well?
    Maybe people without beards aren't allowed? or people in hats.
    Or ninjas.
  • alfablue
    alfablue Posts: 8,497
    This is just the way it is, but would you seriously wish that people with disabilities were excluded from access to public footpaths? I'm sure you don't really think that :wink:
  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Posts: 79,667
    Right, Gwynedd council don't have any guidelines in place about pushing bicycles.
    BUT, they also state that cycling may be allowed on footpaths depending on the landowner's discretion..
    SEE this PDF for more info
    or this page for some quick info

    Seems to me like Cornwall council is making stuff up, it is the first time I've EVER heard of people not being allowed to push bicycles.
  • alfablue
    alfablue Posts: 8,497
    No, Cornwall is not making stuff up, many sources confirm that this is the case, but yes, you are right there can be an exception where the landowner has given permission. (Problem is, how would one know that permission has been given, the default must be a presumption that it has not been given).

    Your "quick info" link confirms that footpaths are "for walkers only" and the further info link at the bottom of the page states that there is no right to ride a bike, but the landowner may give permission.

    With regards to a cycle not being a usual accompinament, a vast number of sources report the same (Doncaster, Cambridge, The Ramblers Assoc, etc) so if you look you will see many instances of this assertion, that you haven't stumbled across it before is not surprising, it is rather obscure, I am sure few people would stumble upon this accidently; St Helen's Council have a more detailed explanation. I am afraid that the absence of info on the Gwynedd web site does not mean that others are making stuff up.
  • grumsta
    grumsta Posts: 994
    That's Cornwall Council's interpretation of the law, not necessarily a correct one.

    Was just looking up some bike routes in Scotland and found this.
    You should not cycle on footpaths which are reserved for walkers.

    http://cycling.visitscotland.com/find_r ... d_forest_2

    :)
  • alfablue
    alfablue Posts: 8,497
    grumsta wrote:
    That's Cornwall Council's interpretation of the law, not necessarily a correct one.
    You are quite right, however this interpretation is based upon case law that has established what is classed as a "usual accompaniment". All other sources found (dozens) share this interpretation (if you would care to search you will find many, many such sources), none contradict it, so given that most of us are not lawyers, nor do we employ lawyers to advise us on rights of way, whilst those various sources have done, I think I might just take their advice. I know it is a message that people don't like, but pretending it is "made up" is not really a very sensible way to proceed, if one is interested in observing the rules. I fully understand that some people do not have any interest in doing so.
  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Posts: 79,667
    Actually, in the eyes of the law, a person pushing a cycle is regarded as a pedestrian.
    Hence, you are allowed to walk on the pavement whilst pushing your bike, but not allowed to ride.
  • alfablue
    alfablue Posts: 8,497
    yeehaamcgee wrote:
    Actually, in the eyes of the law, a person pushing a cycle is regarded as a pedestrian.
    Hence, you are allowed to walk on the pavement whilst pushing your bike, but not allowed to ride.
    "Pavements", i.e. more correctly known as "footways" beside a public road or carriageway, are treated entirely differently to "footpaths" in the eyes of the law. The discussion, above, concerns footpaths.
  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Posts: 79,667
    Are you saying that a person pushing a cycle is a pedestrian in one circumstance, and a cyclist in another?
  • alfablue
    alfablue Posts: 8,497
    No, I am saying that on the footway, the cyclist pushing a bike is a pedestrian, however, on a footpath, a walker may take with them a "usual accompaniment" which has been defined in case law to include push chairs and wheelchairs, but excludes cycles, so a walker on a footpath may not push a bike or they will be guilt of trespass, unless permission has been given by the land owner.

    But yes, the laws are different in these two different situations.

    I don't make the rules, just telling how it is :wink:
  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Posts: 79,667
    Well, i reckon there's clear grounds for appeal if you get sued for pushing a bike.
  • alfablue
    alfablue Posts: 8,497
    What would the grounds be? Ignorance of the law doesn't work.
  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Posts: 79,667
    Because a footpath is for pedestrians, and a person pushing a bike is a pedestrian.
  • bails87
    bails87 Posts: 12,998
    Yes, the person pushing the bike is a pedestrian, but the bike itself has been deemed an "unreasonable" accompaniment. Just like wheeling a kids go kart, or a shopping trolley.(These are examples, not necessarily saying it's right or wrong) Oh, and did I read somewhere that it's still technically illegal to push a pram or pushchair on the pavement?
    MTB/CX

    "As I said last time, it won't happen again."
  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Posts: 79,667
    or a yacht. :lol:

    Actually, the fact that a bicycle is not listed as "usual accompaniment" does not mean it is NOT "usual accompaniment"
    It has been misinterpreted.
  • bails87
    bails87 Posts: 12,998
    I thought there had been cases where it was deemed unusual. Or was the ambiguity coming from the fact that a court had never actually decided if a bike was unusual or not?

    It's stupid all round really, I genuinely wouldn't put bikes in the same destructive & dangerous category as horses. If a kid walks behind a bike he's not going to get a faceful of hoof (or rear mech) or get pooed on come to think of it! The problem if bikes were allowed on footpaths is some old dear would try to lift a tandem over a stile and end up sueing when they got squashed by it.
    MTB/CX

    "As I said last time, it won't happen again."
  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Posts: 79,667
    bails87 wrote:
    The problem if bikes were allowed on footpaths is some old dear would try to lift a tandem over a stile and end up sueing when they got squashed by it.
    Honest to your gods, I think this is why bikes aren't allowed on footpaths.
    The landowner has a duty of care to ensure that whoever is using the paths has easy access, and must maintain any gates, stiles, etc.
    If they were to allow cyclists onto the paths, then I can forsee a lot of people complaining (and in this day and age, possibly suing) that they couldn't get their bike over the gate or whatever, which would lead to a major backlash from land-owners.
    To force landowners to replace old stiles etc with something suitabe for "cyclists" would definitely cause an issue.
  • bails87
    bails87 Posts: 12,998
    Yeah, in terms of cyclists and walkers interacting, I can't see how there's realistically any more of an issue on a footpath than a bridleway, it's possible to be an idiot and plough into someone anywhere!

    But bridleways are built for horses so already have wide gates rather than stiles. We need some kind of amnesty, so if it's safe for a hiker with backpack to walk over then the landowners should be protected if I CHOOSE to lift my bike over the stile and fall off, then it's my own fault. That kind of thing. Doesn't protect landowners if they've been properly negligent/dangerous, but makes the countryside more accessible.
    Of course it would mean people taking responsibility for their own actions, so it'll probably never happen....
    MTB/CX

    "As I said last time, it won't happen again."
  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Posts: 79,667
    bails87 wrote:
    Of course it would mean people taking responsibility for their own actions, so it'll probably never happen....
    Unfortunately, I agree wholeheartedly with you there.
  • phead
    phead Posts: 2
    bails87 wrote:
    But bridleways are built for horses so already have wide gates rather than stiles. We need some kind of amnesty, so if it's safe for a hiker with backpack to walk over then the landowners should be protected if I CHOOSE to lift my bike over the stile and fall off, then it's my own fault.

    CROW makes that clear for bridleways anyway, they only have to be passible for horses not for bikes, so remember when reporting a blocked bridleway, tell them your nag cannot get past :)

    As for the footpath question, there was a lords amendment to CROW to allow cycles to be pushed on footpaths. It was removed by the commons as the government said it wasn't needed, their view was that pushing cycles was already legal.

    "The position, broadly speaking, is that anyone can take anything on to a footpath, unless there is a byelaw saying that he cannot."
  • camelopardis
    camelopardis Posts: 14
    Some interesting points here:

    http://www.propertypedlars.org.uk/advice-frame.htm
  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Posts: 79,667
    wow, way to resurrect a dead thread! (twice)
  • captainfly
    captainfly Posts: 1,001
    Going back to the jist of the OP, as this what I encounter, public footpathsin rural areas that are used by tractors, this had me thinking, because tresspass is civil matter and you can only really be suied for doing it, there is no chance there could be any financial damaged caused to a track that is ued by other vehicles, so no worries there. And if there is proof that something classified as a 'footpath' is used by other forms of traffic then there is case that it is also an unrecorded right of way, it gets quite complicated after that :roll:
    -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
    Mongoose Teocali
    Giant STP0

    Why are MTB economics; spend twice as much as you intended, but only half as much as you wish you could afford? :roll:

Categories