Is cycling on a footpath a trespass??
Comments
-
It would be a trespass, that sounds like a general restriction to me BB? All explained in this thread you've suggested HE hasn't read as well?
It would only be trespass if the land owner objected to cycling on the land, So no, not a general restriction. A very location specific restriction !
And with common land of course there is no trespass at all, So that makes it even more location specific
And anyway trespass is a tort, a civil wrong, not a ''restriction'' on an action, but a method of seeking redress if the action takes place0 -
It would be a trespass, that sounds like a general restriction to me BB? All explained in this thread you've suggested HE hasn't read as well?
It would only be trespass if the land owner objected to cycling on the land, So no, not a general restriction. A very location specific restriction !
And with common land of course there is no trespass at all, So that makes it even more location specific
And anyway trespass is a tort, a civil wrong, not a ''restriction'' on an action, but a method of seeking redress if the action takes place
There is no permission to ride a bike on a footpath. By definition it is open to all to walk upon. A landowner does not have to object to you cycling permission has not been granted. The land is his to permit or not permit access. At some point, in most cases historically, permission has been granted for passage across the land either by any means (BOAT), horse/bike/foot (Bridleway), or foot (footpath).
You can chose to ignore the restriction and ride a footpath but you cannot say that you have a right to be there just because the landowner has not specifically walked up to you and objected. He doesn't have to and if he catches you on his land he may seek legal redress for trespass of nuisance - he doesn't have to have given you prior warning that you are not welcome.
It's pretty simple isn't it - footpath....foot....pathCloset jockey wheel pimp whore.0 -
It would be a trespass, that sounds like a general restriction to me BB? All explained in this thread you've suggested HE hasn't read as well?
It would only be trespass if the land owner objected to cycling on the land, So no, not a general restriction. A very location specific restriction !
And with common land of course there is no trespass at all, So that makes it even more location specific
And anyway trespass is a tort, a civil wrong, not a ''restriction'' on an action, but a method of seeking redress if the action takes place
There is no permission to ride a bike on a footpath. By definition it is open to all to walk upon. A landowner does not have to object to you cycling permission has not been granted. The land is his to permit or not permit access. At some point, in most cases historically, permission has been granted for passage across the land either by any means (BOAT), horse/bike/foot (Bridleway), or foot (footpath).
You can chose to ignore the restriction and ride a footpath but you cannot say that you have a right to be there just because the landowner has not specifically walked up to you and objected. He doesn't have to and if he catches you on his land he may seek legal redress for trespass of nuisance - he doesn't have to have given you prior warning that you are not welcome.
It's pretty simple isn't it - footpath....foot....path
Yeees, OK if your That certain of your facts, put up the case law where someone has been found by a court to be trespassing by riding a bike on a footpath. If you can do so, we will start from there. But if as I suspect no such case law exists, you will have to accept that what your claim as a hard fact is no more than an assumption on your part
So over to you ?0 -
So you know how case law is established? What court it would go to?
Why would you need case law when common law is clear on the matter?
I get the impression you haven't a clue what you are on about!Currently riding a Whyte T130C, X0 drivetrain, Magura Trail brakes converted to mixed wheel size (homebuilt wheels) with 140mm Fox 34 Rhythm and RP23 suspension. 12.2Kg.0 -
So you know how case law is established? What court it would go to?
Why would you need case law when common law is clear on the matter?
I get the impression you haven't a clue what you are on about!
Common law is composed of case law. That is ALL it it is
There is nothing in common law regarding trespass, that mentions bicycles to my knowledge. which is hardly surprising as most of it predates the invention of the velocipede by a few hundred years.
your point seems to be, that IF a landowner ever took it court they would win. That is an opinion. An opinion your entitled to expressed. but not in anyway a fact. Which is unfortunately, which what both you and the other guy are claiming it to be
Have you any FACTs on the topic ?0 -
Common law is based on case law but the vast majority of that isn't recorded so it can't be quoted as you requested, however you asked for case law and avoided answering that question. Howeer it is has been condensed
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/37/pdfs/ukpga_20000037_en.pdf
Schedule 2
"Section 2(1) does not entitle a person to be on any land if, in or on that
land, he—
(a) drives or rides any vehicle other than an invalid carriage as defined by
section 20(2) of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970"
The established right of way on footpaths is by foot (funny that) the law has evolved to cover anything not on foot which explicitly a cycle is not (you could carry it though).
A landowner has no right to take you to court, the legal occupier would though, of course he won't necessarily win, that would depend on what action they were taking and why wouldn't it?Currently riding a Whyte T130C, X0 drivetrain, Magura Trail brakes converted to mixed wheel size (homebuilt wheels) with 140mm Fox 34 Rhythm and RP23 suspension. 12.2Kg.0 -
Common law is based on case law but the vast majority of that isn't recorded so it can't be quoted as you requested, however you asked for case law and avoided answering that question. Howeer it is has been condensed
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/37/pdfs/ukpga_20000037_en.pdf
Schedule 2
"Section 2(1) does not entitle a person to be on any land if, in or on that
land, he—
(a) drives or rides any vehicle other than an invalid carriage as defined by
section 20(2) of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970"
The established right of way on footpaths is by foot (funny that) the law has evolved to cover anything not on foot which explicitly a cycle is not (you could carry it though).
A landowner has no right to take you to court, the legal occupier would though, of course he won't necessarily win, that would depend on what action they were taking and why wouldn't it?
I thought you were claiming base knowledge on the topic ?
You cant use statute law as prima facia evidence of a tort. You do know that ? a lot of statutes have a disclaimer to that effect.
This one however restricts its self just to mechanical propelled vehicles
An Act to make new provision for public access to the countryside;
to amend the law relating to public rights of way; to enable traffic
regulation orders to be made for the purpose of conserving an
area’s natural beauty; to make provision with respect to the
driving of mechanically propelled vehicles elsewhere than on
roads; to amend the law relating to nature conservation and the
protection of wildlife; to make further provision with respect to
areas of outstanding natural beauty; and for connected
purposes
So wouldn't be any use at all for the purpose, not even persuasive
A land owner ( or occupier) would need to prove his trespassing case using only common law cases
Have you any ?0 -
Making it a criminal offence to drive mechanically propelled vehicles away from roads doesn't make cycling lawful!
I give up....the Americans have a good expression for you!Currently riding a Whyte T130C, X0 drivetrain, Magura Trail brakes converted to mixed wheel size (homebuilt wheels) with 140mm Fox 34 Rhythm and RP23 suspension. 12.2Kg.0 -
Making it a criminal offence to drive mechanically propelled vehicles away from roads doesn't make cycling lawful!
Well no, but nether does it mean that its unlawful. Which begs the question of why you posted something totally irrelevant to the discussion, claiming it supported your point. it seems you didn't bother reading it, which makes you look a bit of an idiot
The claim that cycling on a footpath is automatically trespass was made by you. The burden to supply some legal authority to support that claim is therefore yours. As it now seems you have taken your bat and ball home. I think its fair to conclude that you cant locate such legal authority0 -
Which begs the question of why you posted something totally irrelevant to the discussion, claiming it supported your point. it seems you didn't bother reading it, which makes you look a bit of an idiot
Err... you mean like you did when the discussion was about pedal assist e-bikes (the poster you replied to specifically mentioned 'hybrid') and you entered the conversation with 'Yes, they're rubbish because...' and then posted an example about a fully motorised bike?All the gear, no idea and loving the smell of jealousy in the morning.
Kona Process 134 viewtopic.php?f=10017&t=129946070 -
brianbee wrote:[url=<span class= wrote:paul.skibum[/url]"][url=<span class= wrote:brianbee[/url]"][url=<span class= wrote:The Rookie[/url]"]It would be a trespass, that sounds like a general restriction to me BB? All explained in this thread you've suggested HE hasn't read as well?
It would only be trespass if the land owner objected to cycling on the land, So no, not a general restriction. A very location specific restriction !
And with common land of course there is no trespass at all, So that makes it even more location specific
And anyway trespass is a tort, a civil wrong, not a ''restriction'' on an action, but a method of seeking redress if the action takes place
There is no permission to ride a bike on a footpath. By definition it is open to all to walk upon. A landowner does not have to object to you cycling permission has not been granted. The land is his to permit or not permit access. At some point, in most cases historically, permission has been granted for passage across the land either by any means (BOAT), horse/bike/foot (Bridleway), or foot (footpath).
You can chose to ignore the restriction and ride a footpath but you cannot say that you have a right to be there just because the landowner has not specifically walked up to you and objected. He doesn't have to and if he catches you on his land he may seek legal redress for trespass of nuisance - he doesn't have to have given you prior warning that you are not welcome.
It's pretty simple isn't it - footpath....foot....path
Yeees, OK if your That certain of your facts, put up the case law where someone has been found by a court to be trespassing by riding a bike on a footpath. If you can do so, we will start from there. But if as I suspect no such case law exists, you will have to accept that what your claim as a hard fact is no more than an assumption on your part
So over to you ?
I take my assumption from the legal definition of a footpath and the interpretation of those rules by the OS, ramblers association etc.
Google doesn't seem to spit out a whole load of legal cases for me to link to - doesn't mean there aren't any, just means google is only good for searching for porn and shopping.
I am not a lawyer (and I suspect you aren't) but this short extract from legislation.gov.uk seems pretty clear on the definition of a footpath - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/69/section/66
Now it may well be the case that no landowner has ever pursued a trespass claim against a cyclist for riding on a footpath on his land and I can totally see that being the case - the landowner would first off have to see and catch the person and obtain his name and address from him in order to pursue such a claim. Second, the landowner would actually have to care that much to bother.
The absence of case law does not alter the basis of the legislation under which a case could be made. The results of that case would depend on the erratic nature of local magistrates.Closet jockey wheel pimp whore.0 -
brianbee wrote:[url=<span class= wrote:paul.skibum[/url]"][url=<span class= wrote:brianbee[/url]"][url=<span class= wrote:The Rookie[/url]"]It would be a trespass, that sounds like a general restriction to me BB? All explained in this thread you've suggested HE hasn't read as well?
It would only be trespass if the land owner objected to cycling on the land, So no, not a general restriction. A very location specific restriction !
And with common land of course there is no trespass at all, So that makes it even more location specific
And anyway trespass is a tort, a civil wrong, not a ''restriction'' on an action, but a method of seeking redress if the action takes place
There is no permission to ride a bike on a footpath. By definition it is open to all to walk upon. A landowner does not have to object to you cycling permission has not been granted. The land is his to permit or not permit access. At some point, in most cases historically, permission has been granted for passage across the land either by any means (BOAT), horse/bike/foot (Bridleway), or foot (footpath).
You can chose to ignore the restriction and ride a footpath but you cannot say that you have a right to be there just because the landowner has not specifically walked up to you and objected. He doesn't have to and if he catches you on his land he may seek legal redress for trespass of nuisance - he doesn't have to have given you prior warning that you are not welcome.
It's pretty simple isn't it - footpath....foot....path
Yeees, OK if your That certain of your facts, put up the case law where someone has been found by a court to be trespassing by riding a bike on a footpath. If you can do so, we will start from there. But if as I suspect no such case law exists, you will have to accept that what your claim as a hard fact is no more than an assumption on your part
So over to you ?
I take my assumption from the legal definition of a footpath and the interpretation of those rules by the OS, ramblers association etc.
Google doesn't seem to spit out a whole load of legal cases for me to link to - doesn't mean there aren't any, just means google is only good for searching for porn and shopping.
I am not a lawyer (and I suspect you aren't) but this short extract from legislation.gov.uk seems pretty clear on the definition of a footpath - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/69/section/66
Now it may well be the case that no landowner has ever pursued a trespass claim against a cyclist for riding on a footpath on his land and I can totally see that being the case - the landowner would first off have to see and catch the person and obtain his name and address from him in order to pursue such a claim. Second, the landowner would actually have to care that much to bother.
The absence of case law does not alter the basis of the legislation under which a case could be made. The results of that case would depend on the erratic nature of local magistrates.
The problem with your missive above are two fold
1) You can not use statute law to base a claim for a Tort on
2) If as you suggest no one has ever pursued a case against a cyclist on a footpath for trespasser, then it is fundamentally wrong to refer to cyclist on footpaths as trespasser, potential;y trespasser allegedly trespasser, but absolutely no basis to say there is an automatic restriction on it. just you THINK there maybe a restriction if it was taken to court ?
Additionaly
If you look at the definition of bridleway, ( below) you see that that also seems to restrict cycling, but no one is suggesting that cycling on a bridleway is unlawful. you cant selectively read statutes and then only offer the section that agrees with you as '' evidence '#'
“bridleway” means a highway over which the public have the following, but no other, rights of way, that is to say, a right of way on foot and a right of way on horseback or leading a horse, with or without a right to drive animals of any description along the highway;
So why would cycling on a bridleway be OK, when your link seems to prohibit it ?0 -
This thread has gotten really boring.
And silly.
Just ride.I don't do smileys.
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
London Calling on Facebook
Parktools0 -
As a walker and cyclist I believe in being fair to all. I'm also a whitewater kayaker for decades too. Kayakers had pretty poor access once due to archaic access laws most notably riparian rights. All access was negotiated access often with limits such as limited access times, limited numbers or both strictly controlled by a local canoe club that negotiated access. Things have got better now.
With this in mind I do not personally have a problem with cyclists on footpaths even though you'd think it should not be allowed as indicated in the name. I only have one basic wish, that is common good. What I mean is what is good for walkers is good for cyclists. That means limit conflicts.
Example today my partner and I took our very young child walking in the lakes. We were on footpaths all the way, one was permissive only. We stopped at the junction of our path going into another. We didn't need to stop just took a couple of minutes to look around. Glad we.did because I a bunch of cyclists came down the hill on that footpath that was a foot wide along the next week stretch for us. If we hadn't stopped they would have been rattling down where we would have been. In my personal view, as exciting that route was for them, I believe they should not have been on the it. Undoubtedly there would have been.conflict if I'd have had to drag my son out of their path. BTW that path was steep above and below without much scope for us and cyclists to pass.
So no matter what the law does or doesn't say this is a small country with conflicts between users. Let's not add to it by stubborn.insistence on using potentially inappropriate routes. If you must take such routes ride such that is you can easily stop within your sightlines, you either stop or walk your bikes past other users if it's a very narrow path and walkers please accept other users. It's all give and take. IMHO those.cyclists today were just takers. Riding their speed down that path was not right.0 -
3rd page...0
-
-
Maybe everyone just hates you.I don't do smileys.
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
London Calling on Facebook
Parktools0 -
Brian, my long and rambling post (sorry for that) was relevant since an earlier thread was dismissive about cycling on footpaths and IIRC was inconsiderate to other users in the attitude they had if their post was their true attitude of course. Could have been an argumentative post. For anyone to hold a completely inconsiderate attitude to others on any type of trail on a forum it deserves confronting. My way was to give that example that could easily have affected me and my family. Imagine the outcry over MTB rider knocking a toddler down a steep hill if it came with a video. Like that.outcry over the pavement cyclist. It all puts cyclists down IMHO. The niceties of legal position pales compared to the injury of other users.
Of course going into the minutiae of access laws is more interesting than real situations.0 -
Brian, my long and rambling post (sorry for that) was relevant since an earlier thread was dismissive about cycling on footpaths and IIRC was inconsiderate to other users in the attitude they had if their post was their true attitude of course. Could have been an argumentative post. For anyone to hold a completely inconsiderate attitude to others on any type of trail on a forum it deserves confronting. My way was to give that example that could easily have affected me and my family. Imagine the outcry over MTB rider knocking a toddler down a steep hill if it came with a video. Like that.outcry over the pavement cyclist. It all puts cyclists down IMHO. The niceties of legal position pales compared to the injury of other users.
Of course going into the minutiae of access laws is more interesting than real situations.
I think we might be at cross purposes ? I agree with you entirely about careless attitude to others, particularly kids. My point is that shouldn't happen if the cyclist are there lawfully or not. So perhaps a better way of putting it , is trespassing( or not) is irrelevant to your point about safety ?0 -
Never heard of thread drift or the idea of countering forum posts you find detestable? Agree it is nothing.to do with.the.finer points of law you seem quite interested in. It is however relevant simply because IMHO this thread has previously drifted into the kind of direction that leads to views on responsibilities. It has drifted back between that earlier post to the latest ones mostly due to your arguments with a few people.
No doubt you disagree with drift of threads and prefer the circular discussion about precedent, tort and other minutiae.0 -
Read the first page then got bored.
If you can't ride on the road (motorists saying you don't pay tax etc) then the footpath is the logical choice. IMO if pedestrians complain and say you should be on the road, then I say they should be too.
Honestly though, the road is more predictable than pedestrians on the footpath with there heads glued to the phone. The road has laws, footpaths don't.
And if you are riding on a footpath where it is clear that pedestrians are on the same path, a sensible rider will not treat them like a slalom course. If anything I would say pedestrians are more arrogant to cyclists.
I use a mixture for commuting and find the footpaths more unpredictable. Certain cases I am riding at a snails pace behind someone for five minutes who has headphones on and keeps swaying from left to right as they are so far disconnected from their surroundings.0 -
I think cyclists are more aware of pedestrians than pedestrians are off cyclists.0
-
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19748320#p19748320]Clockworkmark31[/url] wrote:I think cyclists are more aware of pedestrians than pedestrians are off cyclists.
Unless I was acting like a d**k on routes and footpaths with pedestrian access, I would say I have as much right to access the same route.
Live and let be.0 -
Do you always talk to yourself?I don't do smileys.
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
London Calling on Facebook
Parktools0 -
Do you always talk to yourself?
All the time, It is the most sensible conversation one can wish to have.0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19748317#p19748317]Clockworkmark31[/url] wrote:Read the first page then got bored.
If you can't ride on the road (motorists saying you don't pay tax etc) .
But you can ride on the road and you do pay tax
are you mistaking this discussion about footpaths (in the countryside) with footways (pavements at the side of the road ?) If so your DEFINITELY not allowed to cycle on them, which is maybe why peds are being a bit off with you ?0 -
Certainly preferable to talking to brianbee.[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19748341#p19748341]Clockworkmark31[/url] wrote:Do you always talk to yourself?
All the time, It is the most sensible conversation one can wish to have.I don't do smileys.
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
London Calling on Facebook
Parktools0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19748317#p19748317]Clockworkmark31[/url] wrote:Read the first page then got bored.
If you can't ride on the road (motorists saying you don't pay tax etc) .
But you can ride on the road and you do pay tax
are you mistaking this discussion about footpaths (in the countryside) with footways (pavements at the side of the road ?) If so your DEFINITELY not allowed to cycle on them, which is maybe why peds are being a bit off with you ?
Footways, my commute takes me through the town center and then to avoid an A Road I have to use a B road that every lorry, car and any other vehicle uses as a shortcut. No way would I go on the road at that point.0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19751183#p19751183]Clockworkmark31[/url] wrote:[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19748317#p19748317]Clockworkmark31[/url] wrote:Read the first page then got bored.
If you can't ride on the road (motorists saying you don't pay tax etc) .
But you can ride on the road and you do pay tax
are you mistaking this discussion about footpaths (in the countryside) with footways (pavements at the side of the road ?) If so your DEFINITELY not allowed to cycle on them, which is maybe why peds are being a bit off with you ?
Footways, my commute takes me through the town center and then to avoid an A Road I have to use a B road that every lorry, car and any other vehicle uses as a shortcut. No way would I go on the road at that point.
Well you are acting illegally, You can hardly be surprised if law abiding pedestrians get a bit arsy with you ?0 -
I don't see anyway he said he was surprised at pedestrians getting arsy, or did you make that up?I don't do smileys.
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
London Calling on Facebook
Parktools0
