Public Rights of Way ?'s

Anonymous

so, if i was found riding on a footpath, who would arrest me and take me to court and how am i supposed to know i am breaking a law?

alfablue

footpaths are marked, yellow arrows, footpath signs. Bridleways have blue arrows. Seems easy to me. For my local area I check the map.

Anonymous

i understand how they are differentiated, and im pretty handy with an os map, but how would it be proved that i know i shouldnt be there?

for example,

its called a footpath but it doesnt say i cant ride a bike

its called a bridleway, but it doesnt say i can ride a bike

also, what harm is being done by riding on a footpath?

alfablue

The designation "footpath" means you can't, and "bridleway" means you can. The harm as far as I can see it is that you may upset, scare or hurt walkers who can reasonably expect the footpath to be bike free. How would you feel if motorcycles or cars went on cycle paths (not cycle lanes)?

Anonymous

so where is it written that you can on one and not on another and why would anyone have read it? its not a legal requirement as far as i know for everyone who visits the countryside to have a license or pass a test of some sort.

i wouldnt care what was on any route i was riding on, i would just expect everyone to be able to use whatever route and to get out of the way of the fastest/biggest thing.

stumpyjon

Don't make any difference whether you knew or not. Key thing is though you can't be arrested or prosecuted for trespass, it's a civil offence. If they want to sue you they'll need to find out who you are and I'm not about to give my name and address to some yokel farmer. The other thing is the landowner can tell you to leave their land as you are committing trespass, thing is how are they going to make you. If they lay hands on you surely that'll be assault which is criminal, literally

As I said before the way the law stands is absolute poo, reality is any courteous responsible mountain biker isn't going to do any harm to the path or others using it. Trouble is the politicians don't care about off road riders (too busy claiming for non-existant mortages probably), actually they don't care about people commuting to work on bikes either (have you seen the poor excuses for cycle lanes in most towns), they just talk the talk cos they think people believe what they say .

Thing is they missed a golden opportunity when the right to roam legislation was brought in a few years ago. I'm voting for the green, independant, BNP Rantzen party at the next election, that'll make a difference.

alfablue

sheepsteeth wrote:

so where is it written that you can on one and not on another and why would anyone have read it? its not a legal requirement as far as i know for everyone who visits the countryside to have a license or pass a test of some sort.

i wouldnt care what was on any route i was riding on, i would just expect everyone to be able to use whatever route and to get out of the way of the fastest/biggest thing.

It is written here.

You don't have to read it, like you probably haven't read the law on anything, but ignorance of the law is never a defence. Having passed a test is irrelevant - can't quite get my head around the logic of that one! :roll:

The fact that you wouldn't care, and that if you are bigger and faster means you get right of way - that has to be a wind up! So on the road you are happy to be squished by a bus because its bigger...???

Should we not set a minimum IQ filter on this forum?

alfablue

The right to roam legislation is a bit of a mess, but regardless of that I still believe some rights of way are unsuitable to people other than on foot, and the differentiation is valid.

I don't think it is really a matter of "will I get caught" or "what can they do to me", it is more an issue of living co-operatively with your fellow human beings, some of which do not ride bikes.

Some of the fascism above (not you Stumpy) is a mirror image of WVM road rage - why do cyclists aspire to such depths??? I though we were better than that :oops:

stumpyjon

Whoa, calm down.

Let's not attack each other. At the end of the day the law is unfair, unworkable, badly drafted, out of date and very difficult to adhere too. In short it is very poor legislation. Best thing we can do is stick together. It's not our fault we've got a rubbish government (oh wait maybe it is ).

weeksy59

alfablue wrote:

sheepsteeth wrote:

Should we not set a minimum IQ filter on this forum?

Possibly, however just because your interpretation is that your IQ is superior because you abide by the laws of the land, doesn't necessarily mean you're correct.

How about we set a 'Barrel of laughs on a night out on the beer' filter...

You can guess who's getting their IP blocked

alfablue

I am not likely to be calm when someone suggests that if I am slower or smaller I must get out of the way or get squished, sorry.

We do have 27000kms of bridleways in this country, plus 1000's more of permissive paths and the like where cycling is permitted. It may not be enough, it might not be where you want, but I have a fat file full of fantastic off road routes, a collection of OS maps for many parts of the country, and several cycling route books. I never have trouble finding a fantastic, legal place to ride.

weeksy59

stumpyjon wrote:

Do I only ride on legal rights of way, simple answer no. Do I go out of my way to antagonise other users / landowners - same answer no. Best advice is to avoid footpaths and non legal tracks where possible, it you do use them try and be as unobtrusive as possible.

This is it in a nutshell for me.

Personally i must be fortunate that we don't seem to have ANY of the Blue/Yellow or anything signs on the terrain i ride regularly. I've only ever seen them in a park where i take my 11 month old out for walks. So for me it's not a major issue.

Anonymous

thing is, most law is pretty common knowledge, you cant murder someone or nick stuff or refuse to pay taxes etc etc.

my questions were genuinely based in an interest as to how we are supposed to know about the laws governing who can and cant use which rights of way, i would imagine your inability to discriminate between questions and spoiling for a fight means you may well fall short of any minimum IQ requirement.

i wouldnt expect to get squished by a bus of course cause i know i am allowed to use a road.

ps, i know a fair bit about certain laws as ive been responsible for upholding them, and now i know about a bit more, amazing what happens when you ask a question . im normally used to less gobbing off to be fair but t'internet makes folk brave as fook.

stumpyjon

I think the footpath signs are all locally based anyway, I don't think there are any national standards.

weeksy59

alfablue wrote:

but I have a fat file full of fantastic off road routes, a collection of OS maps for many parts of the country, and several cycling route books. I never have trouble finding a fantastic, legal place to ride.

That doesn't come as a suprise to me at all.


I bet you also have a fantastic set of knitting patterns, a lovely jumper you knitted yourself with a puppy face on the front you bring out every Xmas day when sitting telling stories and a Austin Allegro that you clean every 3rd day at 12.24pm just before sitting down to watch Loose Women to get some much needed knitting tips

alfablue

weeksy59 wrote:

That doesn't come as a suprise to me at all.


I bet you also have a fantastic set of knitting patterns, a lovely jumper you knitted yourself with a puppy face on the front you bring out every Xmas day when sitting telling stories and a Austin Allegro that you clean every 3rd day at 12.24pm just before sitting down to watch Loose Women to get some much needed knitting tips

And you think that will get you through the barrel of laughs out on the beer filter? I think you must have had a few already if you laugh at that! Try harder.

stumpyjon

Bored now :roll:

alfablue

+1

shaun23

i ride wherever i like, footpath and bridleway.

if a farmer asks me that he doesn't want bikes on his land i respect that and move on but as a famous old quote says (don't know who said it) "you'll never get anywhere in life without asking" just in this case its trying by going on the land and riding.er.

i was on a local footpath near me today and passed the farmer in his landrover. i always thought that he wouldn't like bikes as he has gates etc but he seemed fine so im happy to ride there more often

Anonymous

most of my local route is footpath based and the rest is private land, no one has ever complained or moaned like a little pissy virgin. however, i slow to pass folk, get off to walk through the graveyard and am always very amiable. seems to do the trick.

europeandy

In my view theres no need to exclude cyclists from footpaths, its not being there that gives reasonable people the hump, its riding inappropriately for the conditions.

I will never understand this view that we should meekly settle for what access we are allowed to avoid offending people, with that attitude the Kinder trespass would never have happened- then where would the walkers be

Captain Turok

I wholeheartedly agree with the more eloquent posts following the theme of 'yes I ride on footpaths, but I do it respectfully'.

The pedantic views regarding 100% compliance with plainly daft laws, is as daft as the laws themselves. An in my personal opinion as easily ignorable.

thelawnet

fred1star wrote:

thelawnet wrote:

You have a legal duty to give way to pedestrians and horse riders on bridleways. Not the other way round. If there's a group of people having a stroll in a world of their own and you're trying to set a speed record then you can politely signal your presence, but that doesn't mean that they have to, or are capable of, getting out of the way in the few seconds they have before you shoot past them at 25mph.

Ring your bell politely and try to make your way through them.

Lots of people say that... however in 6 six years doing the job of PROW officer no one was ever able to show me the relavent legislation to back that statement up..

Really?

it seems like a pretty basic bit of legislation to me, it's in the same section of the Countryside Act that gives cyclists the right to go on the bridleway in the first place.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/ ... #pb6-l1g30

Any member of the public shall have, as a right of way, the right to ride a bicycle, [F1not being a mechanically propelled vehicle], on any bridleway, but in exercising that right cyclists shall give way to pedestrians and persons on horseback.

lesz42

common sense goes a long way....

bomberesque

fred1star wrote:

Lots of people say that... however in 6 six years doing the job of PROW officer no one was ever able to show me the relavent legislation to back that statement up.

countryside act 1968 section 30 wrote:

30.—(1) Any member of the public shall have, as a right of way, the right to ride a bicycle, not being a motor vehicle, on any bridleway, but in exercising that right cyclists shall give way to pedestrians and persons on horseback.

a most chauvanistic piece of legislation ... unless there's something more current that overrules it ... please tell me tehre's something more current that overrules it

/edit Balls, beaten to it!

stumpyjon

Fraid not, all the legislation was written back in '68 when mountain bikers really didn't exist (at least to the vast majority). It was all done badly, that's the reason we often have bridleways changing status to a footpath halfway along their length. When surveyed one person came at the path from one end and graded it as a footpath, the other person graded their bit bridleway and no common sense was applied.

You can apply to have the status changed but councils aren't interrested in general.

fred1star

thelawnet wrote:

it seems like a pretty basic bit of legislation to me, it's in the same section of the Countryside Act that gives cyclists the right to go on the bridleway in the first place.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/ ... #pb6-l1g30

Any member of the public shall have, as a right of way, the right to ride a bicycle, [F1not being a mechanically propelled vehicle], on any bridleway, but in exercising that right cyclists shall give way to pedestrians and persons on horseback.

Thanks for that...

fred1star

stumpyjon wrote:

Fraid not, all the legislation was written back in '68 when mountain bikers really didn't exist (at least to the vast majority). It was all done badly, that's the reason we often have bridleways changing status to a footpath halfway along their length. When surveyed one person came at the path from one end and graded it as a footpath, the other person graded their bit bridleway and no common sense was applied.

You can apply to have the status changed but councils aren't interrested in general.

Its amazing how many examples of this there are... its often because the parish councils were the people out doing the surveys, so if a bridleway went across a parish boundary one parish surveyed their side the other parish did theirs and the two parishes designated the route differently.

Also I'm not for one second saying that parish councillors at the time were corrupt :twisted: , but how many parish councillors at the time were farmers and landowners???? Probably most of them… so when undertaking the survey they probably noted down far fewer rights of way than were currently in existence …..

CycloRos

at the risk of sounding a bit cliche, "laws are made for people not people for laws"

I think as fellow mountain bikers we can all agree that the laws (particularly in England) are well out of date, unmanageable and unenforceable.

The best place I've found for riding by far is Scotland, a lot of the trails there are clearly sign posted and mainly accessible to all types of users providing they do so whilst respecting other users.

There are certain types of trail i.e. purpose built downhill courses where obviously sharing the trail is not a good idea, but the vast majority of trails should be able to be enjoyed by anyone who wishes to use them (just do so whilst respecting others!).

fred1star

Here here.....