Ambushed while riding

Clank

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

Even so, worst case scenario is that the landowner can take you to court for trespassing.

This^^ mostly, but not always......

Rights of Way: A guide to law and practice. 3rd Ed. Riddall & Trevelyan wrote:

A cyclist who rides on a footpath commits trespass against the holder of the land over which the path runs. Unitary authorities and non-unitary district councils have the powers to make byelaws to restrict or prohibit cycling on specified footpaths and bridleways (Local Government Act 1972 s235) and traffic authorities have powers under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to make orders to the same effect. National Park authorities and local planning authorities responsible for land a designated Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty may make bylaws for the preservation of order and the prevention of damage as respects land belonging to them or land subject to an access agreement or order. The power extends to the making of byelaws that prohibit the use of land by traffic of any description (National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 s90). Infringement of such byelaws and orders is a criminal offence.

It is submitted (as noted above) that a bicycle is not 'a natural accompaniment' of a user of a footpath, and that to push (or carry) one along a footpath is to commit trespass against the landowner, even if no byelaw or traffic order is infringed. (A person pushing a bicycle remains a pedestrian for the purpose of the Road Traffic Act, as in a pedestrian having priority over a motorist on a pedestrian crossing. Crank vs Brooks (1980))

and (more importantly)....

Rights of Way: A guide to law and practice. 3rd Ed. Riddall & Trevelyan wrote:

The 1988 [Road Traffic] Act contain other provisions making the behaviour of cyclists on a road (including a footpath and bridleway) a criminal offence
a) cycling recklessly; (section 28)
b) cycling without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other users (section 29)
c) cycling while unfit to ride through drink or drugs (section 30)
d) promoting or taking part in a race or trial of speed between cycles on a carriageway or bridleway, unless the race is on a carriageway and is authorised by regulations made by the Secretary of State (section 31)

There a bloody good chance that the wizened old f****rs have read the same book I have, and that they're trying to (mis)represent the RTA 1988 s29. C**ts.

YeehaaMcgee

That seems to be something by the rambler's association, not actual law. This discussion comes up time and time again. On a few occasions, someone has linked to council laws, and although I only specifically remember that in the case for Wales (I don't recall if England differed), it is not stated anywhere that riding a bicycle is braking any law, since it is at the landowner's discretion. There is no automatic allowance for cycles, but there is no automatic dis-allowance, either.
I wouldn't trust any publication by anyone connected in any way to the Rambler's association, since they are a bunch of utter cnuts, who want everything their own way, and will actually fight to prevent anyone else trying (like they are) to gain rights of way.

Just to be clear though, I couldn't give a rat's arris. I've always ridden wherever looks like a good trail, and with a bit of politeness and common sense, you'll (almost) never have any issues.
Since the late 80s, I've only had a handful of altercations with ramblers, and over the years, landowners have got used to seeing MTBs and have learnt that there's really no harm in it.

Clank

Do want me to type out the actual wording of the relevant laws too? More than happy to.

For the sake of simplicity, Wales comes under the same laws for what I've written.

Sure it's a book published by the RA, but it is considered the definitive text on explaing all ROW law. It contains all the relevant sections of law at the back and references case law to highlight how each section of Statute has been applied. If you consider it biased, then all I can say is you've never used it for it's designed purpose. On the other hand, I have. Look at it like the old Aikido thing - turning the greater force against itself, Grasshopper.

And when did this suddenly become about you - you egotistical sod!

Ride where you want, it doesn't bother me. But there's nowt wrong with being in the full possession of facts.

YeehaaMcgee

Clank wrote:

And when did this suddenly become about you - you egotistical sod!

Er, it didn't, I was just adding my voice.

Clank wrote:

Do want me to type out the actual wording of the relevant laws too? More than happy to.

Actually, yeah, go on then.

Clank

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

Er, it didn't, I was just adding my voice

That you were, no doubt! ....mostly by explaining why legalities don't apply to you and why you won't believe useful information.

On the serious front, agree completely about it largely being a bunch of Anti's causing s**t for the rest of us. Problem is, the Anti's believe they have the power of law on their side, and as such they will attempt to abuse that law to make the rest of us look like c**ts, regardless of the actual facts. My view is, if we know how the law is applied, we can build a better defence. And then bludgeon them with it.

Great example: I had a pair of Ramblers, walking towards me down a live rally stage in Penllyn. Their excuse was that Right to Roam applied as the forest was 'Access Land' and they could walk with impunity. I explained, ordinarily, this was the case, however our rally taken possession of the forest, and under right of law, we had suspended public access to the forest (except on the public footpaths that criss-crossed the site) - FC land has the provision of temporary exemption from Right to Roam. It was only these footpaths that now had legal access right, and they weren't on one. Signs had been posted to this effect, for the previous 14 days, at every ROW access point into the forest (I'd put half the bloody things out). They explained that they wouldn't have seen these signs as they hadn't entered via a legal ROW, but had an alternative route in they used. I then explained that Right to Roam only applied if the land was accessed via a legitimate ROW, so they were now guilty of trespass, as well as wilfully endangering their own lives. They had lost their smugness and were making their way to the nearby footpath, well clear of the track, as a 600hp cross-country car came leaping over the crest and bellowed down the Cat1 they had been so determined to walk on. They damn near shat themselves.

I digress, but dang, that tale still makes me smirk. Smug f**kers.

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

Clank wrote:

Do want me to type out the actual wording of the relevant laws too? More than happy to.

Actually, yeah, go on then.

As a starter, find the below. I'll apologise now, it'll take me a little longer to assemble the stuff on who can use what and where and why. Annoyingly, I had it documented (correct as of 2006), but the laptop and external media it was on were victims of a recent burglary. I have it on DVD somewhere, but I've been struggling to find it.

RTA Section 1988 wrote:

28 Dangerous cycling
(1)A person who rides a cycle on a road dangerously is guilty of an offence.
(2)For the purposes of subsection (1) above a person is to be regarded as riding dangerously if (and only if)—
(a)the way he rides falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful cyclist, and
(b)it would be obvious to a competent and careful cyclist that riding in that way would be dangerous.
(3)In subsection (2) above “dangerous” refers to danger either of injury to any person or of serious damage to property; and in determining for the purposes of that subsection what would be obvious to a competent and careful cyclist in a particular case, regard shall be had not only to the circumstances of which he could be expected to be aware but also to any circumstances shown to have been within the knowledge of the accused
29 Careless, and inconsiderate, cycling.
a person rides a cycle on a road without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road, he is guilty of an offence.
30 Cycling when under influence of drink or drugs.
(1)A person who, when riding a cycle on a road or other public place, is unfit to ride through drink or drugs (that is to say, is under the influence of drink or a drug to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the cycle) is guilty of an offence.
(2)In Scotland a constable may arrest without warrant a person committing an offence under this section.
31 Regulation of cycle racing on public ways.
(1)A person who promotes or takes part in a race or trial of speed on a public way between cycles is guilty of an offence, unless the race or trial—
(a)is authorised, and
(b)is conducted in accordance with any conditions imposed,
by or under regulations under this section.
(2)The Secretary of State may by regulations authorise, or provide for authorising, for the purposes of subsection (1) above, the holding on a public way other than a bridleway—
(a)of races or trials of speed of any class or description, or
(b)of a particular race or trial of speed,
in such cases as may be prescribed and subject to such conditions as may be imposed by or under the regulations.
(3)Regulations under this section may—
(a)prescribe the procedure to be followed, and the particulars to be given, in connection with applications for authorisation under the regulations, and
(b)make different provision for different classes or descriptions of race or trial.
(4)Without prejudice to any other powers exercisable in that behalf, the chief officer of police may give directions with respect to the movement of, or the route to be followed by, vehicular traffic during any period, being directions which it is necessary or expedient to give in relation to that period to prevent or mitigate—
(a)congestion or obstruction of traffic, or
(b)danger to or from traffic,
in consequence of the holding of a race or trial of speed authorised by or under regulations under this section.
(5)Directions under subsection (4) above may include a direction that any road or part of a road specified in the direction shall be closed during the period to vehicles or to vehicles of a class so specified.
[F1(6)In this section “public way” means, in England and Wales, a highway, and in Scotland, a public road but does not include a footpath.]

YeehaaMcgee

Clank wrote:

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

Er, it didn't, I was just adding my voice

That you were, no doubt! ....mostly by explaining why legalities don't apply to you and why you won't believe useful information.

What? Where did I say legalities don;t apply to me? There are differences in some minor laws between England and Wales, and to the best of my knowledge, there are subtle differences in access rights because of this.
I was sceptical of the information in the book, because it was on a rambler's association website. Unless it's backed up, I won't trust a bloody thing they say
This is a forum, for exchange of dialogue and ideas, is my voice not allowed? If so, I might suggest that you go and fornicate with yourself.

Anyway, back to the access side issue. I've read through that RTA cestion 1988 you quoted, and, admittedly I'm knackered, and half-watching a film, but I can't actually see any references to cycling on footpaths. I appreciate your time to find it, but I fail to see the relevance.

Sarnian

I would just like point out I live in the Channel Islands, we have different laws to the UK many of them very old and can even be slightly different from parish to parish and even the ones that are written down are very hard to police and be prosecuted for they just don't go to court or have penalties, even though we have a no trass passing law you want be able to find any one who have ever even heard of anyone being taken to court, I've been riding for 20 years and I will admit I do ride in places that have no cycling signs walkers only or sometimes walkers and horses (I am always polite and put the walker first) and I can count on one hand the amount of times I have been shouted at in all that time.

bg13

kinell! dragging this one out men! can someone put this thread out of its misery as this is the CC and not the communting page!

Kowalski675

Clank wrote:

They had lost their smugness and were making their way to the nearby footpath, well clear of the track, as a 600hp cross-country car came leaping over the crest and bellowed down the Cat1 they had been so determined to walk on. They damn near shat themselves.

I digress, but dang, that tale still makes me smirk. Smug f**kers.

Would've loved to see that

welshkev

Sarnian wrote:

, I've been riding for 20 years and I will admit I do ride in places that have no cycling signs walkers only or sometimes walkers and horses (I am always polite and put the walker first) and I can count on one hand the amount of times I have been shouted at in all that time.

same here in wales. I've said many times before that politeness goes a long way. the only time I've been spoken to in a telling off manner in the last 10 years was the woman I mentioned earlier and we were on a cycle path

stubs

Theres grouches in all sections of society. I find 99.9% of walkers, joggers and horse riders are fine and pleasant and happy if you are polite and if the trail is narrow I find it best to jump off and wave them through. Its the 0.01% who are unhappy with everything who cause the trouble and unfortunately they seem to be the sort who are on commitees, local councils and run walkng clubs.

welshkev

one thing I have noticed though (well I have been told by riders) is that horses don't like people in full face helmets. there's a trail by us that crosses a bridal way, so if I see horses and we're stopped at the top of the trail I usually take my helmet off too.

Clank

bg13 wrote:

kinell! dragging this one out men! can someone put this thread out of its misery as this is the CC and not the communting page!

Hey, I stand by my 'cable-tie and skin peeling'!

Solves a lotta problems, that one! :twisted:

badly_dubbed

citizens arrest LOL...the guy would have got one chance to take his hands off me...

The Rookie

I'd have been tempted by.....

"Citizens arrest, why of course let's head straight for the nearest police station in your car, the bike is coming too"

"Officer, we arrested this man for......" Insert whatever the heck they think you did.

"Officer I'd like to report these two old duffers for assault, and if it were an offence, being termianlly stupid, ah and you can add wasting police time if you consider your time so wasted!"

cambo

Clank wrote:

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

Er, it didn't, I was just adding my voice

That you were, no doubt! ....mostly by explaining why legalities don't apply to you and why you won't believe useful information.

On the serious front, agree completely about it largely being a bunch of Anti's causing s**t for the rest of us. Problem is, the Anti's believe they have the power of law on their side, and as such they will attempt to abuse that law to make the rest of us look like c**ts, regardless of the actual facts. My view is, if we know how the law is applied, we can build a better defence. And then bludgeon them with it.

Great example: I had a pair of Ramblers, walking towards me down a live rally stage in Penllyn. Their excuse was that Right to Roam applied as the forest was 'Access Land' and they could walk with impunity. I explained, ordinarily, this was the case, however our rally taken possession of the forest, and under right of law, we had suspended public access to the forest (except on the public footpaths that criss-crossed the site) - FC land has the provision of temporary exemption from Right to Roam. It was only these footpaths that now had legal access right, and they weren't on one. Signs had been posted to this effect, for the previous 14 days, at every ROW access point into the forest (I'd put half the bloody things out). They explained that they wouldn't have seen these signs as they hadn't entered via a legal ROW, but had an alternative route in they used. I then explained that Right to Roam only applied if the land was accessed via a legitimate ROW, so they were now guilty of trespass, as well as wilfully endangering their own lives. They had lost their smugness and were making their way to the nearby footpath, well clear of the track, as a 600hp cross-country car came leaping over the crest and bellowed down the Cat1 they had been so determined to walk on. They damn near shat themselves.

I digress, but dang, that tale still makes me smirk. Smug f**kers.

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

Clank wrote:

Do want me to type out the actual wording of the relevant laws too? More than happy to.

Actually, yeah, go on then.

As a starter, find the below. I'll apologise now, it'll take me a little longer to assemble the stuff on who can use what and where and why. Annoyingly, I had it documented (correct as of 2006), but the laptop and external media it was on were victims of a recent burglary. I have it on DVD somewhere, but I've been struggling to find it.

RTA Section 1988 wrote:

28 Dangerous cycling
(1)A person who rides a cycle on a road dangerously is guilty of an offence.
(2)For the purposes of subsection (1) above a person is to be regarded as riding dangerously if (and only if)—
(a)the way he rides falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful cyclist, and
(b)it would be obvious to a competent and careful cyclist that riding in that way would be dangerous.
(3)In subsection (2) above “dangerous” refers to danger either of injury to any person or of serious damage to property; and in determining for the purposes of that subsection what would be obvious to a competent and careful cyclist in a particular case, regard shall be had not only to the circumstances of which he could be expected to be aware but also to any circumstances shown to have been within the knowledge of the accused
29 Careless, and inconsiderate, cycling.
a person rides a cycle on a road without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road, he is guilty of an offence.
30 Cycling when under influence of drink or drugs.
(1)A person who, when riding a cycle on a road or other public place, is unfit to ride through drink or drugs (that is to say, is under the influence of drink or a drug to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the cycle) is guilty of an offence.
(2)In Scotland a constable may arrest without warrant a person committing an offence under this section.
31 Regulation of cycle racing on public ways.
(1)A person who promotes or takes part in a race or trial of speed on a public way between cycles is guilty of an offence, unless the race or trial—
(a)is authorised, and
(b)is conducted in accordance with any conditions imposed,
by or under regulations under this section.
(2)The Secretary of State may by regulations authorise, or provide for authorising, for the purposes of subsection (1) above, the holding on a public way other than a bridleway—
(a)of races or trials of speed of any class or description, or
(b)of a particular race or trial of speed,
in such cases as may be prescribed and subject to such conditions as may be imposed by or under the regulations.
(3)Regulations under this section may—
(a)prescribe the procedure to be followed, and the particulars to be given, in connection with applications for authorisation under the regulations, and
(b)make different provision for different classes or descriptions of race or trial.
(4)Without prejudice to any other powers exercisable in that behalf, the chief officer of police may give directions with respect to the movement of, or the route to be followed by, vehicular traffic during any period, being directions which it is necessary or expedient to give in relation to that period to prevent or mitigate—
(a)congestion or obstruction of traffic, or
(b)danger to or from traffic,
in consequence of the holding of a race or trial of speed authorised by or under regulations under this section.
(5)Directions under subsection (4) above may include a direction that any road or part of a road specified in the direction shall be closed during the period to vehicles or to vehicles of a class so specified.
[F1(6)In this section “public way” means, in England and Wales, a highway, and in Scotland, a public road but does not include a footpath.]

Road. It says ROAD. was the OP on a road? No.