This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
On three recent occasions I have done voluntary footpath maintenance work at the Roaches and on each occasion MTB riders have cycled over footpaths in order to reach a lower bridleway. Today we were able to speak to the bikers who intimated they would use the path if they wanted to regardless if they should or not. They also said they had ridden over the top of the Roaches which currently is not a bridleway.
I have been a mountain biker myself who has now moved to road biking for no other reason than now with advancing years I find it easier I suppose and equal fun and I get fewer punctures, less maintenance and have to wash my bike less often. Yes, you could say I'm just lazy. I like to think I would not have used a footpath to cycle on while mountain biking in my younger day and are there not plenty of places where they can legitimately ride?
One of their arguments today was that walkers create equal erosion and unsightly paths as much if not more than a mountain bike might. Maybe that's right and is a definite point of debate.
I have nothing against mountain bikers as like I said I used to be one myself and occasionally still do. I am also a walker, rock climber and snow/ice climber so get out and about in the outdoors frequently. There is a place for all of us to partake in our preferred activity but should it not be done responsibly and in the appropriate place taking note of and respecting any restrictions.
Does the law need changing to allow more footpaths to be shared with MTB's?
Just thoughts and an opened can of worms and I expect I may get chastised from all directions.
I have been a mountain biker myself who has now moved to road biking for no other reason than now with advancing years I find it easier I suppose and equal fun and I get fewer punctures, less maintenance and have to wash my bike less often. Yes, you could say I'm just lazy. I like to think I would not have used a footpath to cycle on while mountain biking in my younger day and are there not plenty of places where they can legitimately ride?
One of their arguments today was that walkers create equal erosion and unsightly paths as much if not more than a mountain bike might. Maybe that's right and is a definite point of debate.
I have nothing against mountain bikers as like I said I used to be one myself and occasionally still do. I am also a walker, rock climber and snow/ice climber so get out and about in the outdoors frequently. There is a place for all of us to partake in our preferred activity but should it not be done responsibly and in the appropriate place taking note of and respecting any restrictions.
Does the law need changing to allow more footpaths to be shared with MTB's?
Just thoughts and an opened can of worms and I expect I may get chastised from all directions.
18
1
In reply to bonebag:
it's definitely the view of the CTC.
I regularly use footpaths close to where I live and I always give way to those on foot and I've never had a cross word spoken.
as long as us mtbers are curtious to other path users then I would welcome the change
not sure who pays for any alterations to gates and styles etc?
Davey
it's definitely the view of the CTC.
I regularly use footpaths close to where I live and I always give way to those on foot and I've never had a cross word spoken.
as long as us mtbers are curtious to other path users then I would welcome the change
not sure who pays for any alterations to gates and styles etc?
Davey
3
In reply to bonebag:
So long as some basic ethics are applied, e.g bikes give way to people coming uphill, then i guess it would work.
So long as some basic ethics are applied, e.g bikes give way to people coming uphill, then i guess it would work.
1
In reply to Mountain Llama:
Can't people just wear what they always have?
Shouldn't need to change style just because they can ride on FPs.
;~))
> not sure who pays for any alterations to gates and styles etc?
Can't people just wear what they always have?
Shouldn't need to change style just because they can ride on FPs.
;~))
5
In reply to bonebag:
I think it depends on the soil. In soft ground the weight per sq in is much greater from bike tires than from walkers' boots, and the tires can cause quite a lot of damage, so I think it's a matter of common sense. If your tires are causing ruts then avoid soft ground until the ground is better able to support the weight.
I agree with those who say pedestrians should have the right of way and please slow right down and use a bell if approaching walkers from behind. This is particularly important for walkers who are hard of hearing.
I think it depends on the soil. In soft ground the weight per sq in is much greater from bike tires than from walkers' boots, and the tires can cause quite a lot of damage, so I think it's a matter of common sense. If your tires are causing ruts then avoid soft ground until the ground is better able to support the weight.
I agree with those who say pedestrians should have the right of way and please slow right down and use a bell if approaching walkers from behind. This is particularly important for walkers who are hard of hearing.
Post edited at 18:11
4
In reply to bonebag:
I've raised the issue of non courteous mountain bikers on here before and ripping up paths on peat moorland. I've no objection in principal but my experience of mountain bikers where I live is very poor (I am also a mountain biker) with frequent issues with walkers and farmers...
I've raised the issue of non courteous mountain bikers on here before and ripping up paths on peat moorland. I've no objection in principal but my experience of mountain bikers where I live is very poor (I am also a mountain biker) with frequent issues with walkers and farmers...
5
1
In reply to bonebag:
Footpaths are for walkers.
Bridleways for walkers,mountain bikers, horses.
Other designated routes allow cars, motorcycles, etc.
There are far too many cyclists who have too little respect for other users, especially walkers, to allow them legal
access to cycle on footpaths.
If you need to use a footpath to get to a bridleway then get off and push/carry the bike.
There will be many who will disagree but in my opinion it's a respect thing.
If cyclists could be guaranteed to cycle carefully along footpaths then maybe it could work
but it's a bit like cycling on the pavement - illegal but actually fine if you respect people on foot and either cycle slowly
when the pavement is empty and stop/give way to pedestrians and push the bike when the pavement is crowded.
While it might be said that it's only a few cyclists who cycle irresponsibly my experience is that irresponsible cyclists are
indeed a minority but too large of one to be allowed legal access to footpaths.
Pmc
Footpaths are for walkers.
Bridleways for walkers,mountain bikers, horses.
Other designated routes allow cars, motorcycles, etc.
There are far too many cyclists who have too little respect for other users, especially walkers, to allow them legal
access to cycle on footpaths.
If you need to use a footpath to get to a bridleway then get off and push/carry the bike.
There will be many who will disagree but in my opinion it's a respect thing.
If cyclists could be guaranteed to cycle carefully along footpaths then maybe it could work
but it's a bit like cycling on the pavement - illegal but actually fine if you respect people on foot and either cycle slowly
when the pavement is empty and stop/give way to pedestrians and push the bike when the pavement is crowded.
While it might be said that it's only a few cyclists who cycle irresponsibly my experience is that irresponsible cyclists are
indeed a minority but too large of one to be allowed legal access to footpaths.
Pmc
18
16
In reply to bonebag:
I would say yes coming from a multidiscipline perspective, and being a fine fellow who would stop or move over in most situations. Given that some bikers and walkers are complete tossers, then I doubt it would work. It would be good to see the conflicts though.
I would say yes coming from a multidiscipline perspective, and being a fine fellow who would stop or move over in most situations. Given that some bikers and walkers are complete tossers, then I doubt it would work. It would be good to see the conflicts though.
6
1
In reply to bonebag:
I feel that the law should stay as it is, but also that footpaths and bridleways should all be looked at to see if they are in the right category. There are bridleways that are not really suitable to be shared with other users and conversely there are footpaths which are perfectly suited to riders of animals and bikes. I suspect that downgrading of bridleways to footpath status would be rare, and not well received by m-bikers.
I feel that the law should stay as it is, but also that footpaths and bridleways should all be looked at to see if they are in the right category. There are bridleways that are not really suitable to be shared with other users and conversely there are footpaths which are perfectly suited to riders of animals and bikes. I suspect that downgrading of bridleways to footpath status would be rare, and not well received by m-bikers.
2
In reply to baron:
But we allow irresponsible motorists who don't drive carefully on the roads so it's hardly an argument against access. Unless you want to ban cars from roads that is.
But we allow irresponsible motorists who don't drive carefully on the roads so it's hardly an argument against access. Unless you want to ban cars from roads that is.
9
1
In reply to bonebag:
The law has got little to do with where it's sensible to ride a mountain bike (or cross bike or whatever). The bridleway access thing is just some weird legal anachronism. Lots of footpaths are suitable for bikes, some bridleways are deeply unsuitable. I'm relaxed about poaching paths ...where it's suitable. I, of course, have sound judgment and common sense. Some people are idiots though. But that goes for whatever form of transport they favour...
The law has got little to do with where it's sensible to ride a mountain bike (or cross bike or whatever). The bridleway access thing is just some weird legal anachronism. Lots of footpaths are suitable for bikes, some bridleways are deeply unsuitable. I'm relaxed about poaching paths ...where it's suitable. I, of course, have sound judgment and common sense. Some people are idiots though. But that goes for whatever form of transport they favour...
5
In reply to steveriley:
Agree with what you say.
The legal situation dates from the mid-sixties, 10 years before mountain biking was 'invented' in the states. What is more, bikes are merely tolerated on bridleways, essentially cyclists are second class citizens - have to give way to everybody else (not a problem) and have no say over the nature of the trail (which is a problem).
Cycling on a footpath is an act of trespass, exactly the same as Benny Goodman and his orchestra 80 years ago, and for exactly the same reasons- the law has not kept up with legitimate desire for access to the countryside for exercise and leisure.
Lumping bikes in with horses is a nonsense- the impact of the latter far exceeds the former. If you need to lump bikes in with one group, then the sensible choice is to distinguish between humans, horses and powered machines.
Having said all that, a lot of mountain bikers don't do themselves any favours by riding aggressively or irresponsibly. There are many trails which should only be ridden when bone dry and quiet, regardless of their legal status.
Agree with what you say.
The legal situation dates from the mid-sixties, 10 years before mountain biking was 'invented' in the states. What is more, bikes are merely tolerated on bridleways, essentially cyclists are second class citizens - have to give way to everybody else (not a problem) and have no say over the nature of the trail (which is a problem).
Cycling on a footpath is an act of trespass, exactly the same as Benny Goodman and his orchestra 80 years ago, and for exactly the same reasons- the law has not kept up with legitimate desire for access to the countryside for exercise and leisure.
Lumping bikes in with horses is a nonsense- the impact of the latter far exceeds the former. If you need to lump bikes in with one group, then the sensible choice is to distinguish between humans, horses and powered machines.
Having said all that, a lot of mountain bikers don't do themselves any favours by riding aggressively or irresponsibly. There are many trails which should only be ridden when bone dry and quiet, regardless of their legal status.
7
2
In reply to bonebag: at this moment in time, cyclists are not allowed to use footpaths and, however much it annoys them, they should abide by that. Nothing gives anti mountainbiking zealots more ammo than flagrant braking of current legislation. I always ride legally and am irritated when I see evidence - YouTube pov vids - of others not doing so.
7
1
In reply to steveriley:
It does make a huge difference where you live. I live in the Black Mtns and ride every week on stocking legal trails and I rarely meet a soul as I avoid weekends. My biggest gripe is the National Park who 'maintain' some of the best singletrack to destruction.
It does make a huge difference where you live. I live in the Black Mtns and ride every week on stocking legal trails and I rarely meet a soul as I avoid weekends. My biggest gripe is the National Park who 'maintain' some of the best singletrack to destruction.
1
In reply to Orgsm:
But we allow irresponsible motorists who don't drive carefully on the roads so it's hardly an argument against access. Unless you want to ban cars from roads that is.
Poor argument.
Irresponsible motorists who don't drive carefully on the roads stand a very real chance of having their licence taken away from them. i.e. you ban the driver, not the vehicle.
But we allow irresponsible motorists who don't drive carefully on the roads so it's hardly an argument against access. Unless you want to ban cars from roads that is.
Poor argument.
Irresponsible motorists who don't drive carefully on the roads stand a very real chance of having their licence taken away from them. i.e. you ban the driver, not the vehicle.
5
1
In reply to bonebag:
I live in Kendal, and on the way up to Scout you can go through Serpentine woods. They are clearly being damaged by rogue mointain bikers who scrape off the thin soil and damage the flora. Tracks increasingly appearing. Shame as we all loose out.
I live in Kendal, and on the way up to Scout you can go through Serpentine woods. They are clearly being damaged by rogue mointain bikers who scrape off the thin soil and damage the flora. Tracks increasingly appearing. Shame as we all loose out.
3
In reply to Chris the Tall:
I know you know this, but worth stating (...again on UKC)
In England & Wales, not Scotland. The Scots don't have the same RoWs arrangement and there is general access for walkers and bikers (with responsibility, Scottish Outdoor Access Code).
Wales is currently considering going to the Scottish model, so England could end up being the anomaly.
Anyway, this has all been done-death-to-death on UKC all before!
> Cycling on a footpath is an act of trespass
I know you know this, but worth stating (...again on UKC)
In England & Wales, not Scotland. The Scots don't have the same RoWs arrangement and there is general access for walkers and bikers (with responsibility, Scottish Outdoor Access Code).
Wales is currently considering going to the Scottish model, so England could end up being the anomaly.
Anyway, this has all been done-death-to-death on UKC all before!
1
In reply to baron: i'm a mountain biker in the lakes .
get off my bike and walk or carry my bike if i need to use a footpath to get to a bridleway are you serious not a chance i'm ever going to do that i've cycled down and up many bridleways where pig ignorant walkers just make deliberately moves into where i m cycling to make me stop.To me walkers are the ones athat need educating.
get off my bike and walk or carry my bike if i need to use a footpath to get to a bridleway are you serious not a chance i'm ever going to do that i've cycled down and up many bridleways where pig ignorant walkers just make deliberately moves into where i m cycling to make me stop.To me walkers are the ones athat need educating.
2
6
In reply to bonebag:
Writing as a lifelong mountaineer, then a mountain biker of 21 years' and now road cyclist of 6 years' experience I can tell you with certainty:
1 - Most mountain bikers don't use maps and have no understanding of, or interest in what's a FP or what's a BW. As far as they are concerned any route is fair game.
2 - The few mountain bikers who are bothered about the difference will call footpath riding "cheeky" and will do it anyway, especally at night with LED lights.
3 - Most of England's footpaths were once packhorse trails and later bridleways anyway and can still cope with bicycle tyres so in many cases points 1 and 2 don't matter where erosion is concerned.
4 - The massive scars going up Britain's mountains were not made by mountain bike tyres but by thousands of walkers.
So in the end it's a fuss about nothing though I used to get hacked off when ramblers used to sneer at me when I was riding on THEIR bridleway (I used to respect footpath law). Mountain biking is not growing like road cycling and younger mountain bikers seem to view trail centres as the place to go as they have no tradition of venturing out into the outdoors with a map. So again, I don't think it's a growing problem.
Writing as a lifelong mountaineer, then a mountain biker of 21 years' and now road cyclist of 6 years' experience I can tell you with certainty:
1 - Most mountain bikers don't use maps and have no understanding of, or interest in what's a FP or what's a BW. As far as they are concerned any route is fair game.
2 - The few mountain bikers who are bothered about the difference will call footpath riding "cheeky" and will do it anyway, especally at night with LED lights.
3 - Most of England's footpaths were once packhorse trails and later bridleways anyway and can still cope with bicycle tyres so in many cases points 1 and 2 don't matter where erosion is concerned.
4 - The massive scars going up Britain's mountains were not made by mountain bike tyres but by thousands of walkers.
So in the end it's a fuss about nothing though I used to get hacked off when ramblers used to sneer at me when I was riding on THEIR bridleway (I used to respect footpath law). Mountain biking is not growing like road cycling and younger mountain bikers seem to view trail centres as the place to go as they have no tradition of venturing out into the outdoors with a map. So again, I don't think it's a growing problem.
5
In reply to bonebag:
Way back in the days of rigid forks, cant brakes and purple anodisation, I was told off by a national park warden for cycling along green drive in the burbage valley (a footpath, not a bridleway). Said warden did not move from the driving seat of his landrover.
Still tickles me a quarter of a century later.
Way back in the days of rigid forks, cant brakes and purple anodisation, I was told off by a national park warden for cycling along green drive in the burbage valley (a footpath, not a bridleway). Said warden did not move from the driving seat of his landrover.
Still tickles me a quarter of a century later.
2
In reply to 3leggeddog:
The footpath status of this was always contentious.
... and now it is a 'permissive' bridleway, so you can ride along it without any issue.
> cycling along green drive in the Burbage valley (a footpath, not a bridleway).
The footpath status of this was always contentious.
... and now it is a 'permissive' bridleway, so you can ride along it without any issue.
Post edited at 14:33
In reply to neil0968:
get off my bike and walk or carry my bike if i need to use a footpath to get to a bridleway are you serious not a chance i'm ever going to do that i've cycled down and up many bridleways where pig ignorant walkers just make deliberately moves into where i m cycling to make me stop.
Maybe they were walking defensively...
get off my bike and walk or carry my bike if i need to use a footpath to get to a bridleway are you serious not a chance i'm ever going to do that i've cycled down and up many bridleways where pig ignorant walkers just make deliberately moves into where i m cycling to make me stop.
Maybe they were walking defensively...
4
In reply to FactorXXX:
I like that. I like it a lot!
> get off my bike and walk or carry my bike if i need to use a footpath to get to a bridleway are you serious not a chance i'm ever going to do that i've cycled down and up many bridleways where pig ignorant walkers just make deliberately moves into where i m cycling to make me stop.
> Maybe they were walking defensively...
I like that. I like it a lot!
In reply to bonebag:
In answer to the OP, no mountain bikers shouldn't simply ride where they please, they should think about whether it is appropriate to ride a particular trail at a particular time, and be aware that conspicuous evidence of their presence/passing is likely to antagonise certain people. And regardless of the legal status, always be overtly friendly and considerate.
But then, I would like people to think a bit more about whether their car journey is really necessary, to think a bit more about where they park, and to drive with more consideration, and I know I'm pissing into the wind on that one. The vast majority of my cycle rides start and finish from home - how many anti MTB ramblers can say that ?
In answer to the OP, no mountain bikers shouldn't simply ride where they please, they should think about whether it is appropriate to ride a particular trail at a particular time, and be aware that conspicuous evidence of their presence/passing is likely to antagonise certain people. And regardless of the legal status, always be overtly friendly and considerate.
But then, I would like people to think a bit more about whether their car journey is really necessary, to think a bit more about where they park, and to drive with more consideration, and I know I'm pissing into the wind on that one. The vast majority of my cycle rides start and finish from home - how many anti MTB ramblers can say that ?
2
1
In reply to ChrisJD:
It may well have been but I for one and I'm sure there are many others, didn't see it last time. Debate and repeated debate is how we progress.
It may well have been but I for one and I'm sure there are many others, didn't see it last time. Debate and repeated debate is how we progress.
1
In reply to Chris the Tall:
It's that sort of smug, superior attitude that does cyclists no favours at all.
>
> But then, I would like people to think a bit more about whether their car journey is really necessary, to think a bit more about where they park, and to drive with more consideration, and I know I'm pissing into the wind on that one.
> But then, I would like people to think a bit more about whether their car journey is really necessary, to think a bit more about where they park, and to drive with more consideration, and I know I'm pissing into the wind on that one.
It's that sort of smug, superior attitude that does cyclists no favours at all.
4
9
In reply to MG:
It's that sort of smug, superior attitude that does cyclists no favours at all.
Popcorn anyone?
It's that sort of smug, superior attitude that does cyclists no favours at all.
Popcorn anyone?
In reply to bonebag:
Or just get even more entrenched...
> Debate and repeated debate is how we progress.
Or just get even more entrenched...
3
1
In reply to bonebag:
Can anyone identify exactly which legislation prohibits cycling on footpaths in England and Wales? That is footpaths as opposed to footways. A footpath may be governed by a Byelaw which could prevent it but not all footpaths are.
As far as I can see there is no criminal law covering it, and using trespass in civil law is not as clear cut as it might be.
Note this has nothing to do with being polite or considerate,just the legal position.
Can anyone identify exactly which legislation prohibits cycling on footpaths in England and Wales? That is footpaths as opposed to footways. A footpath may be governed by a Byelaw which could prevent it but not all footpaths are.
As far as I can see there is no criminal law covering it, and using trespass in civil law is not as clear cut as it might be.
Note this has nothing to do with being polite or considerate,just the legal position.
In reply to telemark:
Correct.
Some useful info/opinions
http://www.ctc.org.uk/campaigning/views-and-briefings/public-footpaths-engl...
> As far as I can see there is no criminal law covering it, and using trespass in civil law is not as clear cut as it might be.
Correct.
Some useful info/opinions
http://www.ctc.org.uk/campaigning/views-and-briefings/public-footpaths-engl...
In reply to neil0968: I consider the dismounting from my bike as an act of courtesy to other path users.
This isn't a competition to see who can outnasty the other person - 'a walker once stepped in front of me so I'm damned if I'm ever giving way to any walkers'.
While two walkers may bump into each other they probably won't hurt each other but a cyclist moving at even a reasonable speed can do serious damage to themselves and other people.
Would it really hurt you or your ego to give way, slow down, stop or walk if it makes someone else's experience more pleasant?
Safe cycling.
Pmc
This isn't a competition to see who can outnasty the other person - 'a walker once stepped in front of me so I'm damned if I'm ever giving way to any walkers'.
While two walkers may bump into each other they probably won't hurt each other but a cyclist moving at even a reasonable speed can do serious damage to themselves and other people.
Would it really hurt you or your ego to give way, slow down, stop or walk if it makes someone else's experience more pleasant?
Safe cycling.
Pmc
1
In reply to bonebag:
Having recently started mtbing, I am pretty shocked at the state of 'bridleway' access, especially considering I live 3 miles from the edge of the peak district and near a dozen stables...
Plenty of bridleways go nowhere, or are separated from another by under 1 mile of 'footpath', which has led to most rides being prob 50% road, which I'm not interested in. I'm also not that interested in trail centres, fun for a loop or 2, but not for a day.
I'm all for separating bikers and walkers where necessary, narrow, steep paths would not be a good place for both to meet. But classing a mtb as a horse is as ludicrous as allowing 4x4s on the causeway was. Now that's finally been stopped, maybe its about time someone actually looked at the rights of way in the peak district (and elsewhere) and applied some common sense to making it a multi-user environment.
Also, there will always be idiots, was recently confronted by a walker for carrying my bike along a footpath, he was still annoyed when I politely pointed out that I wasn't actually cycling. And I've heard bikers bragging about terrifying walkers on jacobs ladder (edale), common sense can't fix stupid, but it might help spread it out a bit.
> Does the law need changing to allow more footpaths to be shared with MTB's?
Having recently started mtbing, I am pretty shocked at the state of 'bridleway' access, especially considering I live 3 miles from the edge of the peak district and near a dozen stables...
Plenty of bridleways go nowhere, or are separated from another by under 1 mile of 'footpath', which has led to most rides being prob 50% road, which I'm not interested in. I'm also not that interested in trail centres, fun for a loop or 2, but not for a day.
I'm all for separating bikers and walkers where necessary, narrow, steep paths would not be a good place for both to meet. But classing a mtb as a horse is as ludicrous as allowing 4x4s on the causeway was. Now that's finally been stopped, maybe its about time someone actually looked at the rights of way in the peak district (and elsewhere) and applied some common sense to making it a multi-user environment.
Also, there will always be idiots, was recently confronted by a walker for carrying my bike along a footpath, he was still annoyed when I politely pointed out that I wasn't actually cycling. And I've heard bikers bragging about terrifying walkers on jacobs ladder (edale), common sense can't fix stupid, but it might help spread it out a bit.
3
3
In reply to bonebag: noticed this on guardian website, but don't know enough about caving to comment
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/mar/28/cavers-fight-to-take-the-rig...
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/mar/28/cavers-fight-to-take-the-rig...
In reply to Rigid Raider:
>[...]4 - The massive scars going up Britain's mountains were not made by mountain bike tyres but by thousands of walkers.
[...]
The cause is more likely to be water. I think the jury is still out as to whether or not bike tracks allow water to get into the subsoil faster than footprints, I'd suspect it does but have no definite proof.
>[...]4 - The massive scars going up Britain's mountains were not made by mountain bike tyres but by thousands of walkers.
[...]
The cause is more likely to be water. I think the jury is still out as to whether or not bike tracks allow water to get into the subsoil faster than footprints, I'd suspect it does but have no definite proof.
In reply to bonebag:
The definition of a footpath in england is pretty clear, here are just three examples;
https://www.gov.uk/right-of-way-open-access-land/use-public-rights-of-way
http://www.environmentlaw.org.uk/rte.asp?id=207
http://www.iprow.co.uk/index.php?page=page&catId=11#2
The definition of a footpath in england is pretty clear, here are just three examples;
https://www.gov.uk/right-of-way-open-access-land/use-public-rights-of-way
http://www.environmentlaw.org.uk/rte.asp?id=207
http://www.iprow.co.uk/index.php?page=page&catId=11#2
In reply to MattDTC:
It is often stated (in a catch-all blanket sense) it's 'illegal' to cycle on a footpath....
From http://www.iprow.co.uk/index.php?page=page&catId=11#2
"On what types of routes do I have a right to ride my bike?"
'On all the categories of public rights of way except footpaths. It is not an offence to ride on a footpath, but may be a trespass against the landowner. However, it is an offence to ride on a pavement beside a carriageway and also where a traffic regulation order or a bylaw is in place to prohibit cycling.
So not a criminal offence. But may be trespass under common law tort of trespass. And it's not the act of cycling per se, but being somewhere without a 'right' of access. Much in the same way as climbers often (less so now with open access) go climbing (both in terms of access to a cliff and the actual routes).
It is often stated (in a catch-all blanket sense) it's 'illegal' to cycle on a footpath....
From http://www.iprow.co.uk/index.php?page=page&catId=11#2
"On what types of routes do I have a right to ride my bike?"
'On all the categories of public rights of way except footpaths. It is not an offence to ride on a footpath, but may be a trespass against the landowner. However, it is an offence to ride on a pavement beside a carriageway and also where a traffic regulation order or a bylaw is in place to prohibit cycling.
So not a criminal offence. But may be trespass under common law tort of trespass. And it's not the act of cycling per se, but being somewhere without a 'right' of access. Much in the same way as climbers often (less so now with open access) go climbing (both in terms of access to a cliff and the actual routes).
My local council publishes recommended MTB routes which include sections of footpath. Whether they had agreement with the landowner, I have no idea.
I find all these accounts of conflict between walkers and cyclists rather curious as I've never encountered any. I do however un-clip and slow right down when approaching walkers, especially parties with children and/or dogs. I will politely ask walkers to move out of the way if that seems appropriate and nobody has ever told me to get lost.
I find all these accounts of conflict between walkers and cyclists rather curious as I've never encountered any. I do however un-clip and slow right down when approaching walkers, especially parties with children and/or dogs. I will politely ask walkers to move out of the way if that seems appropriate and nobody has ever told me to get lost.
1
In reply to Chris the Tall:
Hard as it may be to believe, people were cycling off road long before MTBs were invented.
> The legal situation dates from the mid-sixties, 10 years before mountain biking was 'invented' in the states.
Hard as it may be to believe, people were cycling off road long before MTBs were invented.
3
In reply to Rigid Raider:
Not true. Most of England's footpaths were once the routes local agricultural workers used to move around their local area e.g. between home and work in the fields.
> 3 - Most of England's footpaths were once packhorse trails
Not true. Most of England's footpaths were once the routes local agricultural workers used to move around their local area e.g. between home and work in the fields.
1
In reply to Dogwatch:
Yup, and churches. Loads of footpaths to church.
> Not true. Most of England's footpaths were once the routes local agricultural workers used to move around their local area e.g. between home and work in the fields.
Yup, and churches. Loads of footpaths to church.
In reply to telemark:
You're looking at it from the wrong direction. A public right of way isn't "all access" which then has to be limited or controlled by law. A public footpath allows a right of way to pass only on foot over private land. If instead you pass on a bike, a horse or a vehicle, or do something else incompatible with that right eg stop for a picnic, you are not exercising that right and become a trespasser. Trespass is a civil matter, not a criminal one, but whilst the law is generally clear enough it is up to the landowner whether they wish to enforce it, not the police
Paths are not always public rights of way, they may be permissive where the landowner has agreed to allow access, which they can later withdraw. They can be more or less restrictive than the legal categories, for example they may allow cycles but not horses, or vice versa. You can have a route which is a public footpath but also a permissive cycle path.
> Can anyone identify exactly which legislation prohibits cycling on footpaths in England and Wales?
You're looking at it from the wrong direction. A public right of way isn't "all access" which then has to be limited or controlled by law. A public footpath allows a right of way to pass only on foot over private land. If instead you pass on a bike, a horse or a vehicle, or do something else incompatible with that right eg stop for a picnic, you are not exercising that right and become a trespasser. Trespass is a civil matter, not a criminal one, but whilst the law is generally clear enough it is up to the landowner whether they wish to enforce it, not the police
Paths are not always public rights of way, they may be permissive where the landowner has agreed to allow access, which they can later withdraw. They can be more or less restrictive than the legal categories, for example they may allow cycles but not horses, or vice versa. You can have a route which is a public footpath but also a permissive cycle path.
1
In reply to Howard J:
"You can have a route which is a public footpath but also a permissive cycle path. "
Yes, a local long-distance canal towpath has exactly that status. One reason why cyclists attempting to get the Strava "King of the Mountain" record along the path threatens access for all of us.
"You can have a route which is a public footpath but also a permissive cycle path. "
Yes, a local long-distance canal towpath has exactly that status. One reason why cyclists attempting to get the Strava "King of the Mountain" record along the path threatens access for all of us.
1
In reply to Dogwatch:
Which is why I put invented in quotes. But things have changed dramatically since the 60s. Rambling wasn't 'invented' in the 1920s either, but by the 1930s it was becoming increasingly obvious that the law was outdated - failing to recognise the legitimate desire for access to the countryside for active leisure. Now of course the landowners could point out that there were plenty of roads for the ramblers to walk on, and warn of the environmental impact of allowing them onto the moors, but I don't think many of us would support them.
> Hard as it may be to believe, people were cycling off road long before MTBs were invented.
Which is why I put invented in quotes. But things have changed dramatically since the 60s. Rambling wasn't 'invented' in the 1920s either, but by the 1930s it was becoming increasingly obvious that the law was outdated - failing to recognise the legitimate desire for access to the countryside for active leisure. Now of course the landowners could point out that there were plenty of roads for the ramblers to walk on, and warn of the environmental impact of allowing them onto the moors, but I don't think many of us would support them.
1
1
In reply to Chris the Tall:
Much older than that. e.g. Manchester YMCA Rambling Club was founded in 1880.
http://www.peakdistrict.gov.uk/visiting/crow/crow-timeline
> Which is why I put invented in quotes. But things have changed dramatically since the 60s. Rambling wasn't 'invented' in the 1920s either
Much older than that. e.g. Manchester YMCA Rambling Club was founded in 1880.
http://www.peakdistrict.gov.uk/visiting/crow/crow-timeline
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...