Are they taking the p**s

noodleman

Been riding the woods in and around mylocal area for ages now and never had a problem with walkers, horse riders etc but today i entered the woods from a new direction and saw a sign saying NO MOUNTAIN BIKING. This was put up by the local constabulary so obviously meant to be taken seriously. Now, not knocking horse riders but how the hell can they be any less dangerous to other members of the public than us bikers? Also they do far more damage to the footpaths than us lot. This sign was put up quite recently so obviously someone has a problem with mountain bikers which personally makes me really angry as the government claims that they want to promote healthy lifestyles and build cycle tracks in the cities and so on, then go and victimize what is probably considered by some to be a minority group for what reason?
Has anyone else seen signs like these, and if so do they take any notice of them cause i'm buggered if i am. Grrrrr :evil:

Banned!

why not go to your local police station and ask them, politely, to explain this new rule and the thinking behind it.

if they cant tell you, as may well be the case, go to your local council offices, ask to speak to the parks dept and ask them. again, do this politely. they may well have a perfectly good reason for shutting the woods to mtbrs. it might be mating season for some rare species of migratory bird who would otherwise be spoooked or maybe theyre working on paths and we move too fast for the workers to get out of the way or will destroy thier work efore its completed.

dont go jumping to conclusions and assuming youre being picked on.

Uncle Peter

Are the signs at other entrances to the woods? If they aren't I'd be suprised if the local constabulary are responsible for the signs.

I'm sure there's a website you can go on to find out what classification the trails/paths are. You could try one of your local cycle clubs for information.

stumpyjon

At the end of the day you've got no right to ride anywhere other than on bridleways & RUPP / BOATS. If it's private land the landowner is fully entitled to give selected access to say horse riders and not mountain bikers.

I fully agree with your sentiments, mountain bikers general cause very little nusiance or damage compared to horse riders (you should see the state of some of the bridleways around me at the moment) and especial off road motor bikes & 4 x 4s.

Unfortnately mountain biking is just another example of the current governments f*cked up approach to things, they're quite happy for you to ride to work to sort their congestion problem out, but want to enjoy yourself - no chance.

The sign has most likely been erected by the land owner or possibly the council, chances of it being the police are almost nil, riding where you're not supposed to is a civil, not criminal offence so they wouldn't be interrested. Trouble is if you ignore the sign you're only going to wind up the landowner even more. If you really want to sort it you'll need to speak to the landowner very politely (don't give them anymore excuses) and remember they're legally in the right not you.

If there are bridleways on the other hand stick to them and the landowner hasn't got a leg to stand on.

noodleman

There's multiple entrances but only sign posted at the one. Also says no mountain boarding? or motorcycling. I can understand the motorcycling bit as that would be pretty dangerous because of the speed involved pretty sure you cant mountain board on paths through woods though and cant see anyone bothering to try either, but maybe i will check with the local plod to see what they say. Does seem like its a bit of old fashioned ideas trying to put a stop to "dangerous activities" though.

counterculture

dont use that entrance and play dumb if anyone asks

Uncle Peter

counterculture wrote:

dont use that entrance and play dumb if anyone asks

My sentiments exactly...

schmako

Sadly there is no strikethrough option for my words so: Hammer + Sign = Profit?

Northwind

Move to Scotland

Banned!

yeah, thats my favourite bit about living in scotland. I can go wherever the hell I like, within reason.

I say old chap, you cant ride there!


whit? aye, tae f**k ya roaster!

dave_hill

noodleman wrote:

This was put up by the local constabulary so obviously meant to be taken seriously.

Are you sure? The filth don't normally do that, it's the local authority (if it's public land) or the landowner (if it's private land).

As StumpyJon has already pointed out, if there are no rights of way open to cyclists within the piece of land that you're riding on, there isn't a damned thing that you can do - the landowner can bar anyone that takes their fancy. If you continue to use the land then you leave yourself open to a charge of trespass and possibly criminal damage.

If there ARE rights of way then in order to prevent cycling the landowner can apply to the local authority for a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) to do this. However, if a TRO is applied for, notice has to be given by posting copies of the application at the points where the TRO is to start and end, and a consultation period then follows during which members of the public can put forward support or objection to that proposal.

If the TRO is granted, copies then have to be displayed for a period of 28 days at all access points.

By the sounds of it, the land where you are riding has no rights of way open to cyclists, and therefore it is at the owners descretion.

In order to check the rights of way through the land and the current status thereof, you would have to check the definitive maps held by your local authority planning department.

Northwind

Jesus_Christ wrote:

yeah, thats my favourite bit about living in scotland. I can go wherever the hell I like, within reason.

I say old chap, you cant ride there!

whit? aye, tae f**k ya roaster!

"Does this look like a suitable place to ride a bike to you?"
"well... Yes. Yes it does."

noodleman

It's definatley local constabulary that put it up. My only guess is that people have been moto crossing through the woods and someone has decided to be a bit heavy handed with their authority. It's an area that is very popular with local mountain bikers and is often mentioned on the forum so its not as if it's not been ridden loads of times by people before. Guess i will check it out again and see if anyone starts shooting at me :shock: Thanks for the info guys. At least i will be armed with a bit of polite backchat if needed.

littleandy0410

Is it an official looking sign, properly printed with the local plod's logo? Could be the landowner has put it up without the police's knowledge, but used them as a threat.



Get a pic and post it up here!

calcium

take it down

noodleman

Yes, its official. will take a photo on my next ride.

missmarple

Sod 'em, the lot of them - just play dumb if asked.

zog

Cranham by any chance, if so signs appeared some while ago, never bothered me..

hitchen92

Accidently fall off your bike, flying through mid-air (by accident ofcourse) and then hitting the sign, knocking it down in the process?

realnumber 1

If I'm being honest I would just play dumb.

cougie

Wouldnt taking the sign down be criminal damage ? Not very smart.
If it were me - i wouldnt use that entrance.

GMARS70970

Just use it as encouregment to do a seriously fast lap before getting caught!!

Gwaredd

We noticed this recently too. One route we do has to be ridden by a little bit of road & along the way, there's a lovely little loop through some woods that we nip into. Our group has been using it for years, but last year, we noticed a sign up saying the same as yours with a local constabulary badge logo on it.

Further investigation reveals it was put up by a neighbourhood watch type group (with the backing of the local plod) to stop riders (mainly kids) belting through at high speed, knocking small kids over who play there. Fair enough really, as it could easily happen, but as we use it as part of our winter rides route & often go through at gone 9.00pm, we choose to use our common sense & ignore it. I suggest you do the same.

noodleman

zog wrote:

Cranham by any chance, if so signs appeared some while ago, never bothered me..

Yes mate! it is cranham. I shall be ignoring it as i think it probably is aimed at little scallies making a nuisance of themselves. If i do happen to get pulled up about it i will probably just play dumb.

dave_hill

Is that Cranham Woods, North of Sheepscombe?

If so, according to the OS maps of the area, there are NO public rights of way for bicycles within the woods.

There are some legit bridleways on Cranham Common, between Cranham village and Sheepscombe, but that's your lot.

And before anyone points out that OS maps are not reliable source of rights of way information, I am fully aware of this but I think it's highly unlikely that the existing rights of way would have been made up to bridleway status and then these notices be put up.

What you have here is permissive rights of way - that means the land owner can prohibit whoever they see fit.

Sorry to the OP, but looks like you don't have a case my friend ...

delcol

ignoring the sign is not clever it could land you in court (worse case) be crafty beat the system! it says "no mountain biking" so turn up and ride a cyclo cross bike,,, or a hybrid ,,, or even a bmx,,,,
then politley point out to them you'r doing nothing wrong as their sign says "no mountain biking" not no cycling.... :P :shock:

Banned!

do not ignore the sign and try to plead ignorance. Ignorance of the law is no defence (first thing I learned in law school).


if it says no biking it means no biking. you may choose to ignore this warning, but by doing so you will only strengthen the resolve of the landowner/caretaker and they might well take further action against you and the other riders.

uk_mr_brownstone

dave_hill wrote:

Is that Cranham Woods, North of Sheepscombe?

If so, according to the OS maps of the area, there are NO public rights of way for bicycles within the woods.

There are some legit bridleways on Cranham Common, between Cranham village and Sheepscombe, but that's your lot.

And before anyone points out that OS maps are not reliable source of rights of way information, I am fully aware of this but I think it's highly unlikely that the existing rights of way would have been made up to bridleway status and then these notices be put up.

What you have here is permissive rights of way - that means the land owner can prohibit whoever they see fit.

Sorry to the OP, but looks like you don't have a case my friend ...

There's a few bridleways around the cranham area that MTB's use, but most of it through the local woods (always get mixed up between buckholt and popes wood) is signposted as footpaths and some of it is completely off signed footpaths as well.

Saw a sign up (where Buckholt lane meets the Slad road) advertising 'woods / common land' for sale, suggesting that a lot of it is privately owned

dave_hill

uk_mr_brownstone wrote:

There's a few bridleways around the cranham area that MTB's use, but most of it through the local woods (always get mixed up between buckholt and popes wood) is signposted as footpaths and some of it is completely off signed footpaths as well.

Saw a sign up (where Buckholt lane meets the Slad road) advertising 'woods / common land' for sale, suggesting that a lot of it is privately owned

You'll have to forgive my ignorance of the area as obviously I'm not local, so I don't know it.

However, going off the OS maps for the area the only public bridleways that I can see are immediately to the South of Cranham village on Cranham Common, which is marked as National Trust land. These are marked as red dashed lines. There is also a short loop of public bridleway in Popes Wood to the West of Cranham.

The woods to the North of the village (i.e Cranham Wood, Buckholt Wood, Buckle Wood, Witcombe Wood and Brockworth Wood) have a large proportion of public footpaths (red dotted lines) and what are euphemistically termed "other pathways" (dashed black lines).

As we all know, public footpaths are off limits, so no arguments there. However, the "other pathways" are more correctly termed "permissive rights of way". What that means is you may use them with the landowner's consent. However, the landowner reserves the right to withdraw that access at any time without prior notice.

It looks very much like this is what has happened here, although there may be a good challenge to this in that the landowner, in conjunction with the local constabulary, has chosen to single out one particular group for exclusion - i.e. cyclists. This probably isn't legitimate, since a) it is discriminatory, and b) since the premissive rights of way have no legal status, withdrawal of access cannot be applied to one group of users, it must be applied to all.

The correct way to challenge this is not to flout the requests for "No mountain biking" or "No cycling", but to engage in dialogue with the powers that be; establish why this access has been denied without consultation; enquire as to whether any compromise can be reached; and enquire as to the status of any legal orders in place to prevent cycling.

However, since a landowner is entitled to prevent access where non exists in order to prevent damage to property or to protect the wellbeing of other users of the land the legal questions which this raises are mind-boggling to say the least.

My advice? Comply for now, but do all that you can (legally) to get the decision overturned.

Banned!

My locals trails. forbidden/out of bounds areas marked in red.

dave_hill

Just because you're the son of god...