Public Rights of Way ?'s

paul.skibum

I generally plan new routes using OS maps and its always frustrating to find sections of bridleway that dont link up without a foot path - I tend to work aroudn the problem but it is tempting to ignore the law when you know its unlikely to be a problem.

I ride a good few bridleways which are too narrow to ride without getting whipped by nettles and brambles and have seen footpaths wider than a lot of bridleways - we also have a section of bridleway made up of a series of fairly large long steps that are just about rideable down but not up and are probably impassable to a horse.

The whole system is a farse really and needs changing - generally I am not sure fighting the system by ignoring it is the answer but I sympathise with the more respectful law breakers. The 'uck 'em if they dont like it types should develop a bit more of a sense of community and I dont mean obey all the rules without question but at least accept that they could be more considerate of others in their actions.

stumpyjon

I honestly can't see why we shouldn't have shared access to the footpath network. I'm not talking about changing their status and putting gates in to replace stiles or anything like that, just change the rules so riders can use footpaths. The majority of paths would still be unsuitable for riding. As for incompatibility between riders and pedestrians, I've never had any problems, it works for bridleways so there is no reason there should be any problems on footpaths..

fred1star

I do agree with you... the vast majority of footpaths are suitable to allow shared access. Some aren’t. However any change of status goes out to public consultation, this is where is gets tricky with every man and his dog are allowed their say... even the ramblers. I attended many a meeting where I was trying to persuade the landowner and ramblers to upgrade a footpath to bridleway… most times I could persuade the landowner, usually by promising them financial incentives, but the ramblers would fight all the way. Their argument would be health and safety but clearly they just did not want to share footpaths with cyclists.

This then costs the tax payer money trying to fight these objections and the political will was never there to back me up.

bomberesque

fred1star wrote:

clearly they just did not want to share

nail -> head

stumpyjon

tyre -> face










only joking










honest

thelawnet

Woking Council have advised people to ride on footpaths:

http://www.woking.gov.uk/woking/visit/todo/outandabout/routespring09.pdf

konanige

So if I take my bike with me everywhere I go then that would be a normal accompaniment for me? whereas a pram would not be as Im not allowed to breed due to my bad temperament.

KonaKurt

This is possibly the most memorable thread I ever read here! I can't beleive that a cyclist by law, should not walk along it pushing a bike!

Surely you are only a 'cyclist' as and when you are sat ON the bike riding it..?
Therefore meaning that you would be a walking pedestrian with a bike as baggage?


...and just when I thought the EU and it's 'bent bananas' law was ridiculous enough!

KK

PS: What if, you were INSTRUCTED to dismount your bike and walk with it (along footpath), by a police officer? (An officer of the lauuuw!)

I'm sure many of us have experianced that... so what then?

KonaKurt

PPS: I presume that it IS likewise illegal for a pedestrian of any kind, to walk along (or even cross over!) and part of a cyclepath?

Has anyone ever been prosecuted for this? If so, how much tax payers money was wasted on the legal action?!

Are these laws any better in cycle friendly countries like Holland, Denmark or Ireland?

thelawnet

Of course it isn't. Pedestrians can go anywhere (on rights of way, e.g., roads, footpaths, etc.). If a pedestrian is in the road other vehicles have to give way. If the pedestrian is deliberately walking in the cycle path a cylist would just have to go round.

Aldo001

So riding on the canal towpath in Scotlan? Its a bridleway right?
Only asking cause some areshole walker decided to try to talk to me (and failed as I was listening to some music LOUD) as I went passed him and his wife (I presume it was something negative as his face seemed in a grumpy/angsty expression). The path was about 2-2.5 metres wide, with short grass for about a foot after the width of the path. I decided to be nice and cycle on the bit of grass for them, and I even slowed down and put on a fake smile for them <kind of like that i supposed it looked. They didnt move an inch which meant I had to scrape legs along spiky things
I feel Iam completely in the right here< its just this b'tard is a grumpy old git in my opinion
thanks

OH NO Dan

Aldo001 wrote:

So riding on the canal towpath in Scotlan? Its a bridleway right?
Only asking cause some areshole walker decided to try to talk to me (and failed as I was listening to some music LOUD) as I went passed him and his wife (I presume it was something negative as his face seemed in a grumpy/angsty expression). The path was about 2-2.5 metres wide, with short grass for about a foot after the width of the path. I decided to be nice and cycle on the bit of grass for them, and I even slowed down and put on a fake smile for them <kind of like that i supposed it looked
I feel Iam completely in the right here< its just this b'tard is a grumpy old git in my opinion
thanks

Similar thing happened to me, riding along local canal, walker sees me up ahead walks into the middle of the path so i have no option to stop. Grumpy git! I allways give plently of room for walkers and slow down. I smiled at him anyway and said morning, he just gave me a look of disgust :P

fred1star

That really gets to them.... if your nice to them its difficult to be an arse back... However sometimes you just can't help it and I let rip... :twisted:

Towpaths are a bit of an oddity... they are not by right bridleways... only if the landowner has dedicated them as such or they have been changed to cycleway/track... Believe or not there is a Cycle Tracks Act...... ZZzzZZZzzz

Porgy

thelawnet wrote:

Of course it isn't. Pedestrians can go anywhere (on rights of way, e.g., roads, footpaths, etc.). If a pedestrian is in the road other vehicles have to give way. If the pedestrian is deliberately walking in the cycle path a cylist would just have to go round.

If it's a segregated bike path and there's no reason for the pedestrian to be on the cycle part, then there's no harm done if you offer some instructive advice to the pedstrian, which I always do.

Also - if they're walking towards me I stop and force them to walk around me. If they go back to the bike path after that (and they usually do) then their evenutal death due to collision with a fast cyclists will be no loss to humanity.

Sometimes I advise them to take a similar approach to dual carriageways. And why not?

bomberesque

yeah but Aldod said "in Scotlan" which I assume to be missing a d, which then I *think* means he can ride just where the hell he likes, the spawny get

/edit; to revisit the OP I have a question; does the Right to Roam legislation have any effect on cycling and if so what (in general terms) I tried a search on it and found some info, but only about foot access.

elPedro666

alfablue wrote:

If you ride footpaths you are despicable!

Applying the Tuesday night rule (ie. noone but me in the hills) I rode a crcking footpath drop Tuesday (natch). AoverT right through a thorn bush down a 4meter drop.
owowow
Turns out we had it wrong and God's a rambler after all. :oops:

fred1star

Thanks to everyone who has been airing their views on this thread….. For the most part everyone has conducted themselves with decorum and a hint of humour. I’m not too sure whether some people just act ignorant for effect on a thread or they are truly that way…. I generally like to see the best in people and therefore I’d say it was probably for effect…

Jerry Springer moment….. The law is an ass sometimes (rights of way law for sure) and whether we agree or not I think most people follow the spirit of the law quite well. Ignorance is no defence…. Speeding 40 in a 30 zone…”Sorry Officer I did not know what the signs meant” will not get you off a speeding ticket :shock: . Yes, I speed…. Not in 30/40 zones though… Does that make it any better... probably not. Yes, I cycle on footpaths and routes that are not even public rights of way, but with respect and courtesy to other users… In the last year, no one has challenged me for cycling on a footpath.. That’s because the paths I’m cycling on are more like tracks and I say good morning or afternoon.. not 1 meter wide single tracks through dense woodland.

If you do need additional advice on where its legal to ride, your County Council will have a web site with it all on.. You can consult what is called the Definitive Map which is the legal record of public rights of way.

Any more questions…… :?:

elPedro666

stumpyjon wrote:

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 ).

HaHa! Beautifully put; damn that democracy!

So we give a nod to it, use some common sense & try to get on with the nice folks we share the hills with and forget about the grumpy ones who don't like to share. Job done.

Or move to Scotland & invest in midge repellent & Gore-Tex.

fred1star

bomberesque wrote:

yeah but Aldod said "in Scotlan" which I assume to be missing a d, which then I *think* means he can ride just where the hell he likes, the spawny get

/edit; to revisit the OP I have a question; does the Right to Roam legislation have any effect on cycling and if so what (in general terms) I tried a search on it and found some info, but only about foot access.

Arrgggg The Right to Roam.... The best bit of new legislation to hit our statute books for a long time…. NOT….

It should really be named “ The right to roam on certain bits of land that for the most part you were allowed to walk on before the government spent millions of pounds telling us we could now walk”

In answer to your question… No… The right to roam is for pedestrians only, it does not open up any new areas for cycling… We are now going through the same process for the coastal regions... Again a complete waste of money.. For some reason the government think that the public want complete access to all our coastline. The ramblers my want this but it will cost the tax payer millions to sort this out. The public already have access to most of the coastline... The money or some of it would be better spent on making what access we do have better and perhaps upgrading some to bridleway access where appropriate...

GSDog

alfablue wrote:

weeksy59 wrote:

alfablue wrote:

Public footpaths are open only to walkers.

So, like i said, how is this defined ? how would a person out on a ride know it's only open to walkers ?

Footpaths have yellow arrow signs = walkers, ones with blue arrow signs are bridleways (walkers, riders, cyclists). On OS maps footpaths have pink dotted lines, bridleways have pink dashed lines. OS maps are therefore very useful for planning rides.

Footpaths may sometimes have a signpost saying "footpath".

What are the pink diamond shape icons on an OS map? are they the bridleways?

Like shown here;

Aldo001

Did the map not come with a key...?

elPedro666

Aldo001 wrote:

Did the map not come with a key...?

And I was so pleased I'd held my tongue!

elPedro666

They're long distance paths, I think.

boneyjoe

I often come across bridleways and byways that are totally unrideable (and sometimes barely walkable) due to horses and 4x4s. Are these worth reporting to anyone, and can much be done about them? Its strange the way some bodies go on about the damage cycling causes, while this total destruction of public rights of way barely gets a mention.

Also have to say I found the Scottish system very confusing while on holiday in the highlands. Very hard to tell from the map just exactly where you can and can't cycle. Assumed I had the right to roam, but this obviously wasn't the case from the comments above. Can you give any pointers for people heading up there for the hols?

GSDog

Aldo001 wrote:

Did the map not come with a key...?

I'm using BikeHike; http://www.bikehike.co.uk/mapview.php

bails87

GSDog wrote:

Aldo001 wrote:

Did the map not come with a key...?

I'm using BikeHike; http://www.bikehike.co.uk/mapview.php

The shorter dotted lines (like the one running east to west onto the yellow road just south of Woolford's Farm) are footpaths, the longer dashed lines (like the ones almost everywhere else) are bridleways. And the diamond ones are long distance paths as said above, the size of dashing or dotting between the diamonds defines footpath/bridleway status.

thelawnet

GSDog wrote:

alfablue wrote:

weeksy59 wrote:

alfablue wrote:

Public footpaths are open only to walkers.

So, like i said, how is this defined ? how would a person out on a ride know it's only open to walkers ?

Footpaths have yellow arrow signs = walkers, ones with blue arrow signs are bridleways (walkers, riders, cyclists). On OS maps footpaths have pink dotted lines, bridleways have pink dashed lines. OS maps are therefore very useful for planning rides.

Footpaths may sometimes have a signpost saying "footpath".

What are the pink diamond shape icons on an OS map? are they the bridleways?

Like shown here;

There's more than one kind of OS map.

That's a 1:50,000 map (Landranger).

They use different colours compared with the 1:25,000 (Explorer) maps.

Landranger key:

http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsi ... nd-Eng.pdf

Explorer key:

http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsi ... legend.pdf

djvagabon

weeksy59 wrote:

What's the penalty for the offence of riding on the Pavement ?

has anyone ever seen this enforced ?

You can get a fixed penalty. I think it's £30. I heard a story about a friend of a friend who got a fine for riding on the footpath by a P.C.S.O

fred1star

boneyjoe wrote:

I often come across bridleways and byways that are totally unrideable (and sometimes barely walkable) due to horses and 4x4s. Are these worth reporting to anyone, and can much be done about them? Its strange the way some bodies go on about the damage cycling causes, while this total destruction of public rights of way barely gets a mention.

As far as damage to bridleways and byways go, yes, report this. Your local County Council (or unitary authority) have a duty to maintain these. Funding for such work basically depends on how far up the priority ladder each council place their rights of way network.

Believe or not?? I know Kent County Council really values their network and funding was there for good projects. You may need to keep on at them but basically the more noise you make the higher up on their radar you will be. If only one person is complaining then the problem can’t be too big… At the end of the day there is only a limited budget for these things and the Councils need to spend their money wisely… State your case well, get lots of people involved, local councillors as well and the council will hopefully take action and improve some of your routes.

4x4 have a right to use byways, unfortunately many of our byways just were never intended to be used by the mechanical beasts we see today… The 4x4 fraternity argue that the council should maintain the routes to a standard that they can use them… Having seen the damage that they do and then expect the council to pay for the damage they cause, I am not too sympathetic to their cause. £100,000 does not go along way when your filling 2 meter deep creators over a 2km stretch.

ratty2k

weeksy59 wrote:

alfablue wrote:

weeksy59 wrote:

alfablue wrote:

Public footpaths are open only to walkers.

So, like i said, how is this defined ? how would a person out on a ride know it's only open to walkers ?

Footpaths have yellow arrow signs = walkers, ones with blue arrow signs are bridleways (walkers, riders, cyclists). On OS maps footpaths have pink dotted lines, bridleways have pink dashed lines. OS maps are therefore very useful for planning rides.

Footpaths may sometimes have a signpost saying "footpath".

Ahhhh never used an OS map.


the 'Footpath' signpost would be most useful...

I could then ignore it accordingly.

And this type of attitude gets land restricted. We see large areas of erosion in the Peak district, and some illegal singletrack. Speaking to the ranger confirms that the NP authority dont have enough money to repair the damage caused by other riders and have considered closing access.
Read a map, find a legal route and ride that, it pisses me off seeing people ignore things, because eventually the idiot minority will spoil it for everyone.