More Bridleways - ePetition

mat-ster

Please take 60 sec to vote for this ePetition.
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/15341

Increase Public Bridleways to equal Public Footpaths

Responsible department: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

To acitively promote and encourage the development of new public bridleways for the safe off road use of mainly horse riders, but also cyclist and pedestrians. Currently the national network of public rights of way consists of 91,000 miles footpath; but only 20,000 miles of bridleway, 2,300 miles byway and 3,700 miles restricted byway (source: Natural England web site). The creation of public bridleways (20,000 miles) up to the same level as footpaths (91,000 miles) will reduce road accidents/fatalities (see http://www.horseaccidents.org.uk/) while promoting healthy outdoor activity and safe use of the countryside for all ages/sex.

This in effect means you will have more places to ride a:- Cross country bike, All mountain bike, cycle cross bike, trail bike, off road Unicycle (yes they do exist) etc....

This Petiton is rank 47 so if you have not voted, please take the time to consider - it takes 60 sec...do NOT use a bogus e-mail address or your vote will not count, it is a verisign secure site.

Thanks, please ask 2 other MTB'ers to sign this petition....we have strength in numbers, it's about time we had a voice...!
Matt

mat-ster

Sorry for the extra post - just to point out that if we have more bridleways that would be less chance of meeting a horse rider or rambler....if the bridleways could be linked to trail centres that would be great also.

Please post if you vote - keep the thread at the top.
Thanks, Matt

Anonymous

The issue with this is whilst there may not be objections from walkers (though they'll find ways even if it doesn't affect them), there will be far more from NIMBYs but also from the actual landowners who will be forced to create them. Bridleways take a more space, and perhaps more maintenance than footpaths. The footpaths exist against the land owners wishes. Many accept having them across their land as they're not too wide. Bridleways are bigger and either they have to make them, or they have to turn an existing working farm track into one which causes them problems.

The second issue is bridleways are no fun

Other than that, these petitions do little. To get the equal of what walkers have we need to do what they did, mass trespass of the lands we want to ride.

cooldad

No.

cloudynights

deadkenny wrote:

The issue with this is whilst there may not be objections from walkers (though they'll find ways even if it doesn't affect them), there will be far more from NIMBYs but also from the actual landowners who will be forced to create them. Bridleways take a more space, and perhaps more maintenance than footpaths. The footpaths exist against the land owners wishes. Many accept having them across their land as they're not too wide. Bridleways are bigger and either they have to make them, or they have to turn an existing working farm track into one which causes them problems.

The second issue is bridleways are no fun

Other than that, these petitions do little. To get the equal of what walkers have we need to do what they did, mass trespass of the lands we want to ride.

think you need to ride bridleways in the north then your views of them not being fun would change, nan bield pass,gatescarf pass, are just two typical examples, they just blow trail centres out of sight

cooldad

e petitions are a joke.

cooldad

And all horses should be sent to France or a glue factory

Anonymous

Saw horses on BKB today!

cooldad

Like I said. Bloody horses. Smelly, big scary teeth, leave steaming heaps everywhere. And ridden by pretentious tw4ts.

mat-ster

cooldad - 3 very strange comments...

e Petitions are a Joke?
Horses should be sent to France - Who cares about horses, I want more places to ride my Mountain Bike!
Like I said. Bloody horses. Smelly, big scary teeth, leave steaming heaps everywhere. And ridden by pretentious tw4ts.

I suppose the last one sums you up well....http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/401018


What should you do if your bridleway route takes you through a farmyard protected by a growling dog with bared teeth ?
This can be all too common, but if you are brave - then continue while warding off any "nipping" opportunities! Otherwise, you can regard this as a "blockage" and a way around the farmyard.
It is worth reporting this to the police, who will react when they have a sufficient case load of complaints or injuries.
Oddly, if you did get badly bitten, you are only likely to successfully sue for damages if you can prove that the dog has chewed someone else previously and that the owner was aware of this! :roll:

Bridleways are FUN and often very technical....(at least in the North of England).

cooldad

@matster I don't care about horses. I dislike them. A just for the sake of accuracy, I am an unpretentious tw4t.

You might be interested in this

omegas

I have signed a number of these epetitions and do wonder of what value they are, you see so may posted on the internet on this subject and I have yet to see any with a high signed count.

ilovedirt

I signed, i get fed up by the lack of bridleways and the fact that i have to be pretty cheeky and ride footpaths around here to do any fun natural riding. I don't see why the majority of them can't just be given bridleway status or whatever anyway, as most of them are ridable on bikes and horses.

bails87

For me this isn't about upgrading footpaths to bridleways, that has real impacts in terms of changing stiles to gates (ever tried to get a horse over a stile?!) and widening paths.

Instead, we should be trying to get a change in the law so that cyclists are allowed to use footpaths (not pavements). That way there's no need to change any signage or infrastructure.

cooldad

Footpaths would be a better idea.

DodgeT

So why don't we do a mass trespass too if this is the only way to get something done?

Do you think people would actually turn out for it? How many would be needed - a good few hundred I would of thought.

Would only be right to do it on the peak district too

mat-ster

Don't forget it's the "Creation" of Bridleways.....

The creation of public bridleways (20,000 miles) up to the same level as footpaths (91,000 miles)

In other words more Bridelways.....more places to cycle...

Anonymous

Which is why it will never happen.

Converting footpaths into bridleways or giving cyclists equal rights to them is one thing, but creation of new bridleways requires a huge new scheme to mark them out and allocate them on what would essentially be private land in the majority, and then go through the legal fights with land owners and the hoards of NIMBYs who hate the idea, especially if two wheels are allowed anywhere within 200 miles of their house or their exclusive footpath.

thekickingmule

When he says 'turn footpaths into bridleways' I think he means just the name and the entrance to the path (from style into gate) as the path itself is fine.
Bury is a good case for it, then are hundreds of footpaths around Bury, and seriously few bridleways, it's annoying looking on maps to plan a route, as about 90% of your ride HAS to be on road. And I stick to that because it's the law...... ahem.

My brother's a horsey person (personally I can't stand them) and he's been petitioning for more around Bury for years. He's struggled. I doubt this ePetition will do something, it's better working at it on a local, case by case basis.

diy

There were hundreds of ROW downgraded to footpaths in the last 40 years or so. It wouldn't cost much to upgrade some of them back. I have signed this one as it seems to be heading in the right direction. Simply put it adds balance to bobble hats getting ROW downgraded which they have been doing and could be implemented simply by setting policy at local level to review ROW on foot which are clearly being used by cyclists and horses with a view to upgrade them.

There are no laws preventing cyclists from using a footpath providing it is not adjacent to a highway.

Anonymous

That's the thing. We don't need a label to tell us what we can/can't ride. "Footpath" doesn't legally deny the right to cycle there and lack of "bridleway" doesn't either. Then also there are plenty of places that are neither but yet rideable just as the same as people walk, even though no one's told them they can or can't (e.g. woodland trails, common lands). And then there's 'cheeky'

If we get more official ROW, the bobble hats will then insist we should only ever be on those ROW and moan when we're not. Though they moan regardless anyway.

DodgeT

I was always under the impression that bridleways were good to go, footpaths were not. Think I need to do some reading up...

bails87

I think a footpath gives the legal right of way to people on foot. So just because you're on a bike doesn't mean you can't ride down there. You don't have a right of way, but then you don't have a right of way on foot in (for example) the paved areas outside the the Bullring shopping centre in the middle of Birmingham, you're allowed to use it by the owner.

So on most footpaths, access on a bike is not allowed, but it's also not forbidden. If you ask the land owner they might say yes, in which case access is allowed, or they might say no in which case you'd be trespassing if you rode there on a bike.

So in essence, you can't be arrested for riding on a footpath, but you could be sued for damage caused in a trespass. They'd have to argue, I suppose, that the damage caused riding a bike would be more than the damage caused walking with or without a bike.

So, in summary, I think the petition should be to give cyclists a right of way on footpaths, the same as walkers.

Cyclists have no right to cycle on footpaths away from the road but only commit an offence where local by-laws or traffic regulation orders create such an offence. Cyclists can ride on bridleways, but not on countryside footpaths. To do so is a civil tort, ie not a criminal matter, the landowner has to sue the transgressor for damages (of which there’s likely to be none).

http://www.bikehub.co.uk/featured-artic ... d-the-law/

diy

Bails the examples you gave don't really work, as you have a license to occupy in the situations you quoted. I've also corrected the quote. In any case your first two sentences were correct and the best summary

Cyclists have no right to cycle on footpaths away from the road but only commit an offence where local by-laws or traffic regulation orders backed up by the appropriate signage create such an offence. Cyclists can ride on bridleways, but have no right to do so on countryside footpaths. To do so could be trespass, a civil tort, ie not a criminal matter, the landowner has to sue the transgressor for damages, which would be minimal(1) or use an expressed or implied contract to levy a fee under contract law(2) or take out an injunction to prevent you from coming on to his land.

(1) There have been cases of land owners recovering enforcement costs in cases of repeated trespass (e.g. pikeys), so basically if the land owner if fed up turfing people off his land and has to pay a security company to do so, you start to incur recoverable costs.
(2) Similar to the ANPR private car park "parking charge notice" scams e.g. NO CYCLING, you agree to pay the land-owner a fee of £1000 if you cycle on this land.

Basically if you cycle on a footpath and someone in authority (landowner or his agent) tells you you are trespassing - you just get off your bike and walk, or leave. Nobody can claim you are trespassing without warning you first. there are some exceptions though - sites of special scientific interest, military, railway and a few others.

Also lastly how many times do you see this sign:

to prohibit cycling?

it actually means end of restriction.

bails87

diy wrote:

Also lastly how many times do you see this sign:

to prohibit cycling?

it actually means end of restriction.

Interesting. There is one of those on a footpath near me, with 'No Cycling' written underneath it. I always want to change it to 'Go cycling' but I'm not badass enough

As for the rest of it, thanks. When I ride locally I go on footpaths all the time. No-one's ever said anything to me.

diy

I try to stay off public foot path's, but I wont avoid them per se. The laws were laid down before cycles really existed as a way of enjoying the countryside. Hence IMO there is no reason you shouldn't ride on a footpath provided you are sensible and give priority to walkers.

What I object to is the bobble hats who think the law says cyclists are banned from footpaths. I can't remember how many I have corrected. However it can take a while if they are basing their "knowledge" on the highway code

The real argument is not allowing cyclists on to footpaths, but giving us the same rights to roam as walkers enjoy in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000

bails87

Or just going to the same arrangements as in Scotland. Seems like the simplest and fairest thing to do.

mat-ster

bails87 - I do like your bikes...(BTW your link for "rough" is boken).

Everyone please ask others to sign this Petition - Once it gets to the 100,000 mark it WILL be discussed and has a very realistic chance of being acted upon.

diy - thanks for the heads up on the signs - very interesting...

bails87

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to sign it.

I'm not even entirely sure what it's asking for. If it means what I think it does (building 70,000 miles of new bridleway across currently 'unspoilt' land) then it's just not going to happen.

A well written petition for the Scottish access laws to be introduced in England and Wales would be reasonable and achievable. That might be worth signing, the merits (or not) of e-petitions are another matter....

bails87

Like this: http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/3508

diy

As we have debated before, the moment you ask for permission to access X, then you raise the credibility of arguments against you accessing Y.

I signed the horse one because upgrading a few footpaths to bridleways for the benefit of horse riders gives cyclists a benefit without us being seen as the beneficiary. Asking for the law to be changed to allow cyclists to have a RoW on footpaths could end up with a massive national argument which we could lose.

It reminds me of the motorcycle visor campaign. By and large dark tinted visors were ignored by plod unless they were extreme. There was a national campaign raised to increase the level of tint, which was rejected. Plod then started enforcing the standard as it was high profile and the campaign exposed the wide spread use of dark visors.

What we need is a nice vague request simply to increase the facilities for riding in the countryside, by allowing cyclists access to more of the countryside. This way you don't go head to head with the bobble hats.