The Law Regarding Cycling on Trails

diy

I thought I'd post this separately to any thread, as it may be applicable to more than just the trails [(a)] I ride.

I've noticed that many people have a view that a footpath, footway (note there is a legal difference [2], but I am ignoring it for the purpose of this post), trail or path are by default for walkers only and that cyclists do not have (by definition) a right to ride on them. Furthermore some non legal logic therefore determines that a lack of authority automatically makes it illegal to ride on a trail or path. Some even hold the view that you can be fined.

This view was reinforced when I came across a sign saying "This is not a bridleway, Cycling on trails which are not bridelways is a criminal offence and illegal - signed the legally unaware warden." or words to that effect.

As you can see from the references The specific acts of law and legal precedents are complex and quite old. But at a highest level there are two components. Criminal (Unlawful acts) & Civil (Unauthorized acts causing damage)

In summary:

Cycling on a Trail
- It is illegal to cycle on a path which is adjacent to a highway "Footway" (basically a road) - by default [2, 3] If you do you can get a fixed penalty fine [4].
- All other paths which are not adjacent to a highway require a specific bylaw making it an offence to cycle on the path or trail.
- a Green lane, (and bridleway) is a highway (byway) for the purposes of the above (a bridleway is a byway with restrictions as is a public footpath), but it is often not easy to distinguish between the footpath and the byway. In any case it is subject to the 15 yard rule - i.e. you are allowed to stray within 15 yards of the road (subject to certain conditions).
- a path that has been establised for more than 20 years without challenge is a highway [8]
So no highway pavement or no bylaw and no damage to property [9] = no criminal offence.

Civil trespass and Rights of way.
Right of ways and open access across land typically only extend to walking, although it is often not specific. So you don't have a right to cycle on a path which is a right of way. That said it does not make it illegal to do so. Specifically a land owner could pursue you for damages (I mean the legal use of the word, not damage to property [9]) under trespass law[5], but there is no criminal offence and your access is certainly not unlawful. More unathorised, which is entirely different. For a Land owner to succeed with a claim - he'd have to show damages, which were specifically caused by you and your mode of access [(b)]. Furthermore offering settlement upon being presented with a claim would further frustrate their ability to claim substantial damages. This settlement offer would typically be very low - e.g. £1 [(c)]

Therefore in civil law a right of way merely removes the right of a landowner to sue for trespass. Your key obligation however is to ensure that you give priority to pedestrians and horse riders[12]


Criminal "Trespass"
Where the land is owned by the railway[7], Military or is subject to other bylaws or special restrictions[10] there can be a specific criminal offence. However, technically it is not really Trespass, because trespass is a civil wrong (Tort). In addition sites of Special Scientific Interest are subject to significant protection which would almost certainly mean knowingly carving a new trail on them would be a criminal offence.

So next time a bobble hat shouts that it is illegal to cycle on a foot path you can educate them instead of ignoring them, particularly if they have a dog with them. Although you do need to avoid an argument, leading to Aggravated trespass.

Foot Note:

[(a)] This thread is about off-road (MTB) cycling and does not intent to cover "Road Riding". However a bicycle is a vehicle [1] and must be ridden on the road, in accordance with the rules of the road unless otherwise authorised [2]. A person Pushing a bicycle is a pedestrian and not subject to these rules [#] These rules of the road by and large do not apply to off-road riding.

[(b)] A Land owner has right to use force tro remove a trespasser [6]. However, he could not claim damages related to the maintenance, loss of privacy or any damage caused to the surface of the path (where it is a footpath) as it is the responsibility of the Highway Authority to maintain and the path is open to walkers in any case.

[(c)] Furthermore, any claim would be likely to follow the fast track route (small claims court), and legal costs would typically not be awarded. In addition if a settlement had been offered he might be penalised by the court for failure to resolve the dispute when given the chance.

References:
[1] Taylor v. Goodwin 26-Mar-1879, A bicycle is a Carriage - Justice Mellor and Mr. Justice Lush held that bicyclists are liable to the pains and penalties imposed by the “Furious Driving” Act, 5 & 6 William IV, cap. 50 sec. 78. Two wheeled and one wheel cycles were included in the definition within The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 1994
[2] Section 329(1) Highways Act 1980 amended by section 1 of the Cycle Tracks Act 1984
[3] Section 72 of the Highway Act 1835, amended by Section 85(1) of the Local Government Act 1888 and Section 35 of the Highways Act 1980.
[4] Section 51 and Schedule 3 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 ammended by SI 1999 No. 1851The Fixed Penalty Offences Order 1999
[5] place holder for tort/trespass
[6] Criminal Law Act 1967, Criminal Justice and Publice Order Act 1994 - rights to use force to protect property, defences against Assault etc.
[7] Railway Regulation Act 1840 Sec 16,Regulation of the Railways Act 1868, Sec
British Transport Commission Act 1949 Sec 55
[8]Section 31 of the Highways Act 1980 and the Rights of Way Act, 1932
[9] Criminal Damage Act 1971 sec 1
[10] Sections 128 to 131; Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005
[#] place holder for legal precedents
[11]Section 30 Countryside Act 1968 as amended by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981

Non of the above is legal advice

bigmart

So if a public footpath is marked with a sign "public footbath" and shown as such on an OS Map - are they covered by bylaws making it illigal or would it be a case by case basis?

Personal I think England need to follow suit with the Scotts on this one, there'd be a lot less confusion

diy

it would need a specific bylaw or traffic order prohibiting cycles.

TheNorthernTrain

What is the law on riding along disused railways where the track has been ripped up, there is a stretch near me that i quite fancy riding on, im just trying to work out a route to and from it that involves as little tarmac as possible.

alfablue

north-sure wrote:

What is the law on riding along disused railways where the track has been ripped up, there is a stretch near me that i quite fancy riding on, im just trying to work out a route to and from it that involves as little tarmac as possible.

If still owned by the railway it could be criminal trespass as stated above; if merely private property then I suppose civil trespass.

diy

OK I said I wasn't going to post the acts, but I need to, to answer this..

The only difference between trespassing on a railway and trespassing on a private land is that its a criminal offence not a civil issue.

In any case you still need to be warned [1 in person], [2,3 via signs or in person] that you are trespassing. Only once you have failed to heed your warning, are you committing a criminal offence. Note for some situations [3] the warning can be a sign, at the nearest station.

[1] Railway Regulation Act 1840 Sec 16
[2] Regulation of the Railways Act 1868, Sec 23
[3] British Transport Commission Act 1949 Sec 55 respectively

Its unlikely that a disused/decommissioned track is protected by the above. But you'd need to check for signs. And you could still be trespassing.

ravey1981

I find all this stuff intriguing, living in the Yorkshire Dales i ride a lot on footpaths, trails, etc etc that are not designated bridleways. I always have, I usually go by my own rule.. Is my riding here causing damage to the trail? If it does, I don't. eg in winter some paths can become muddy and cut up by mtb tyres so I don't ride them... out of courtesy to other users and also so that I can enjoy them in summer...

I've had some run ins with die hard ramblers who seem to think that the countyside belongs to them alone....but thats another issue

So am I right in thinking that what you are saying is that if a "path" is not adjacent to a highway (lets call it a road ) or on military/railway owned property then it is not ILLEGAL to ride on it?

To take an example...one "path" I ride crosses a local farmers land. (he knows i ride it and he doesn't mind but lets ignore that) If my riding doesn't damage the land then there would be no case against me?

diy

ravey1981 wrote:

So am I right in thinking that what you are saying is that if a "path" is not adjacent to a highway (lets call it a road ) or on military/railway owned property then it is not ILLEGAL to ride on it?

Correct (save for the other restrictions already mentioned)

ravey1981 wrote:

To take an example...one "path" I ride crosses a local farmers land. (he knows i ride it and he doesn't mind but lets ignore that) If my riding doesn't damage the land then there would be no case against me?

There is no CRIMINAL case against you, because you are not doing anything ILLEGAL. The land owner could sue you for the hypothetical value of the benefit received as a result of trespassing + enforcement and recovery costs. This is very difficult in reality. The owner of the land can also get an injunction against you preventing you from continuing to trespass. Neither is very likely. Obviously breaking an injunction is a different matter.

.blitz

In England and Wales a landowner can, at their discretion, allow cycling on a footpath PRoW that passes through their land.

singlespeedexplosif

So next time a bobble hat shouts that it is illegal to cycle on a foot path you can educate them instead of ignoring them,
all you need to do is say, with a smile, 'Yes, I know. Silly, isn't it?'

diy

.blitz wrote:

In England and Wales a landowner can, at their discretion, allow cycling on a footpath PRoW that passes through their land.

and here lies the problem, few will explicitly do so for a number of reasons. One being that they have a duty to ensure the safety of public accessing their land. Another would be the fact that most private owners want to discourage all access as best they can within the law.

But fortunately (for the reasons already stated) it is for them to take steps to prevent you, not the other way around.

deffler

Very interesting thread & I can actually understand it !!!

dave_hill

diy wrote:

So next time a bobble hat shouts that it is illegal to cycle on a foot path you can educate them.

Ha ha ha, that's funny!!!

Briggo

Classic English law, make it confusing as hell and put as many loopholes in as you can.

dave_hill

diy wrote:

I'm not going to post the specific acts of law here unless people want me to, because they are (in some cases) quite old. But at a highest level there are two components. Criminal (Unlawful acts) & Civil (Unauthorized acts causing damage)

I do agree with the majority of what you have written, although it would help (and be of interest) if you could, because otherwise all you have written is what you believe to be correct.

As you quite rightly claim, though, there is no statute law which says "though shalt not ride a bicycle along a public footpath on penalty of x, y or z" (notwithstanding the penalties for criminal trespass).

However, I maintain that cycling on a public footpath is inadvisable because -

a) leaving yourself open to accusations of trespass and a possible civil lawsuit is not a pleasant proposition. Having been on the wrong end of a civil lawsuit on a completely unrelated matter (and being exhonerated, it should be noted) I can speak from personal experience on this one - I wouldn't want to have to go through that again.

b) it can cause conflict. Maybe not in all areas, but certainly within parts of the country such as National Parks. Unfortunately for the mountain biking community we don't have an effective, coherent single authority to plead our case. Yes I know we have the likes of IMBA UK and the CTC but really they haven't got their act together as far as I can see.

c) it isn't beyond the realms of fantasy to suppose that one day it may become a criminal offence to cycle on a public footpath if enough of us do it and cause enough perceived problems. Once that happens then you have a precedent and it becomes all to easy to take it further

Perceived problems are all it takes - politicians tend to only see things in black and white, and only listen to those who shout loudly enough. If the likes of the Countryside Commission, NFU, National Trust, Ramblers, etc., etc., shout loudly that bicycles must be banned from public footpaths then unless we can shout louder then it could happen, and even then we couldn't be guaranteed success. I prefer not to give these people ammunition.

There is no doubt in my mind that the law is an ass - there is stupid, vindictive, meaningless and outdated legislation in EVERY walk of life, but deliberate flouting of a law simply because you disagree with it is not the way forward. And the exploitation of loopholes is the surest way to get them closed.

Getting a law changed is a long, slow, painful and sometimes expensive process, but where there is little alternative then it is often the only path.

I will continue to try to encourage people to cycle legitimately; not to seek or provoke confrontation with other group; and practice what I preach.

Regrettably though I may be in a minority. Consideration and respect for others is sadly lacking these days and many of us are guilty of it - a lot of posters on this forum seem to think that they can treat other trail users as they see fit, especially if they feel that they have been on the shitty end of the stick but as I keep saying, two wrongs don't make a right and rising to provocation is what the haters want.

There is also the mentality amongst many that "oh well, I'm too lazy/arrogant/ignorant to find out properly what I can and cannot do, so I'll do what the f*ck I like and bollocks to everybody else".

Those of you who do deliberately flout convention will only succeed in getting the rest of us in trouble - legislation regularly only punishes the innocent. You cannot legislate against those people who are determined to cause trouble. This is one reason I gave up shooting - the laws introduced in 1992 and 2006 to prevent criminal use of firearms only made it harder for those of use who owned and used them legitimately to do so with the result that many shooters preferred to give up their sport rather than try to battle on. Meanwhile the criminal use of firearms continued to skyrocket.

The same could happen with mountain biking.

diy

Regarding point C, we could start a massive debate here about the historic role of law breaking in the development of law. In general throughout history (until quite recently - literally the last 10-15 years). When the public broke the law or ignored it on mass, the law was changed. Its only the introduction of automated enforcement that has changed this.

In any case my intention was not to encourage people to ride across farmer's fields, shouting sue me at anyone who challenged them. My intention was to set the record straight regarding access to trails and paths, which are marked footpath. The Law in not an ass, it is actually very much on the side of those who wish to explore the countryside safely, courteously and without restriction.

Regarding the specific law I'll edit my original post and put the references in. However this will take some time

Hopefully once we get to a point where nobody disagrees (from a legal perspective), the mods can make it a sticky.

Personally I think we should cycle on footpaths provided we demonstrate the utmost politeness, courtesy, care for the track and respect for others safety while doing so. We live in on a small island we need to share resources. We need to demonstrates that we can share the countryside and coexist safely. I for example have no problem with 4x4, and motorbikes using paths that I ride on. I see no practical difference between us.

It also helps to show the bobble hats that is is selfish and unreasonable to expect the countryside to be the exclusive domain of walkers.

JoeyBob

Its a very interesting read, on the one hand I can see why it may be better not to provoke interest.

I for example in personal experence bike around some local woods, the tracks built for the bikes among us have never been touched or repaired and are fully boggy and laden with fallen tree's so therefore I bike on the walkers route.

I was stopped the last time we went by the supposed "bobble hat" telling me it was illegal to cycle on that path however a) I pay my council tax which has failed to maintain the track that I would love to ride on and b) the amount of Dog Cr8p left on and all over the track dictates how much they want to look after what they use.

Dont get me wrong I know I am doing something that is otherwise stipulated as wrong however I have always been courteous and polite to any person that has asked me otherwise, when overtaking people with pets or on their own I take it slow and have dismounted before to let them pass until I can reach the single track thats at the end of the wood.

I can feel biased as sometimes I find it enjoyable to walk in the same area or going down to Wales for a trip up a big hill on foot and dont mind MTB'ers that are around but this is a crowded country and there isnt enough room for everyone to enjoy that little piece of countryside we have left that hasnt got a factory, railway or a power station plonked in the middle of it.

Law has a nack of being enterpreted sometimes in the wrong way and being thourghly confusing for the lot of us (if you have ever read any act that has come out of parliment) there is no cohesive way in the right or wrong unless you are a soliciter or you drag one along with you. :shock:

Thanks,

Joey.

diy

Yes IME bobble hats think that a wooden sign saying public footpath forbids you from cycling or riding on the path. ironically those walking with Dogs have no more legal right to use a public footpath than a cyclist.

alfablue

diy wrote:

Yes IME bobble hats think that a wooden sign saying public footpath forbids you from cycling or riding on the path. ironically those walking with Dogs have no more legal right to use a public footpath than a cyclist.

I think a dog would be classed as a "usual accompaniment" on a footpath, a bike probably not and may be considered an act of trespass. Others will point out that this has not been adequately tested in law. Personally, I think the law is less important in this area than common sense and courtesy, something unfortunately lacking in the singletrack footpath mtb'ers I encounter (i.e. if it's singletrack and a footpath, chances are there will be an unfortunate encounter with a walker at some stage).

Father Faff

Well in my case my bike is my "usual accompaniement"! And I'll happily argue that in court as will my wife....

alfablue

That's fine Father Faff, you know best, and f*** the walkers, eh?

Father Faff

I'm a walker too mateM -m also Scottish and users are m(ure enough to share footpathS in Scotland and most other countries in the worldM

gregsd

diy - can I ask are you a lawyer/solicitor or is this just your interpretation of the law?

alfablue

Father Faff wrote:

I'm a walker too mateM -m also Scottish and users are m(ure enough to share footpathS in Scotland and most other countries in the worldM

Aye, it's the English mtb'ers that tear around narrow footpaths without a thought. I have no experience of Scotland.

Father Faff

You don't have much experience of ANY country by the sound of it. Most quite happily let people, horses, bikes, people and mules mix. But then the English are traditionally a bit anal about laws and deferring to the wishes of landowners.

alfablue

Faff, I am so impressed by your insult, beats proper informed discussion, you must be really smart . . awesome!

Father Faff

Sorry, don't mean to offend. - am actually as much English as Scottish but I see no reason why we can't all respect each other and share footpaths responsibly. I agree that this would make the use of some footpaths by cyclists inconsiderate but I think the reality is that most footpaths could easily be shared. Feel free to come back with a reasoable argument if you disagree!

alfablue

No, I don't disagree in theory, more paths could be shared, but some are quite unsuitable because they are too narrow (if associated with poor visibility) to allow this safely, and for others there is likely to be accelerated erosion, which is already a problem in many areas. Whilst one would hope that common sense and courtesy would make more open access work, the small percentage of "arsey" riders would spoil things. One only has to read discussions on this forum to see a proportion of riders consider themselves to be priority users.

diy

I think the confusion comes by the term "right of way" most people will think it means the same as in the highway code - i.e. you have priority. Where as it simply means you are authorised. I think paths need to be shared - our country is too small to have vast areas of open space dedicated to the few to the exclusion of the rest.

MTBing is just another form of rambling. I don't buy the erosion argument, because opening up more paths would reduce erosion not increase it. Walkers, horses, 4x4s, cyclists all need to get used to the idea of sharing our open spaces. If we think we have it bad - its a lot worse for the green laners, who are being hunted to extinction by councils, bobble hats, plod and nimbys.

alfablue

I don't buy the erosion argument, because opening up more paths would reduce erosion not increase it.

This is based on a rather optimistic assumption that all path use is equally distributed to all newly available routes - with none being more popular than any others. Unlikely.

diy

They don't need to be equally distributed they just need to have more use than any net increase, which isn't optimistic at all.