Is this True?

Sue White said:

A booklet issued by the RSPB says "By law, cyclists must give way to
pedestrians and horse riders on bridleways".

Is that true?

No.

--
Danny Colyer <http://www.redpedals.co.uk>
Reply address is valid, but that on my website is checked more often
"The plural of anecdote is not data" - Frank Kotsonis

"Danny Colyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Sue White said:

A booklet issued by the RSPB says "By law, cyclists must give way to
pedestrians and horse riders on bridleways".

Is that true?

No.

--
Danny Colyer <http://www.redpedals.co.uk>
Reply address is valid, but that on my website is checked more often
"The plural of anecdote is not data" - Frank Kotsonis

I thought that the answer was yes - in England and Wales.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/archive/2004/ltnwc/annexblegaldefinitionsandpro1686
states:

Bridleways provide a right of way on horseback, foot and bicycle. The
Countryside Act 1968 gave cyclists the right to use bridleways but they must
give way to other users. The right for cyclists to use a bridleway can be
subject to an order or bye-law prohibiting cycling on particular parts of
it.

Sue White said:

A booklet issued by the RSPB says "By law, cyclists must give way to
pedestrians and horse riders on bridleways".

Is that true?

Yes. Countryside Act 1968 S.30.

--
Matt B

Sue White said:

A booklet issued by the RSPB says "By law, cyclists must give way to
pedestrians and horse riders on bridleways".

Is that true?

Looks like yes:
<http://tinyurl.com/3ajuye>
leads to:
<http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Legislation&title=Countryside+Act&Year=1968&searchEnacted=0&extentMatchOnly=0&confersPower=0&blanketAmendment=0&sortAlpha=0&TYPE=QS&PageNumber=1&NavFrom=0&parentActiveTextDocId=1198758&ActiveTextDocId=1198795&filesize=5870>

--
Danny Colyer <http://www.redpedals.co.uk>
Reply address is valid, but that on my website is checked more often
"The plural of anecdote is not data" - Frank Kotsonis

On 20/12/2007 20:24, Sue White said,

Quoted message said:

A booklet issued by the RSPB says "By law, cyclists must give way to
pedestrians and horse riders on bridleways".

Is that true?

Yes, in England and Wales. By the same token, Ramblers Association
members are not allowed to deliberately obstruct cyclists using
bridleways, I beleive :-)

Unfortunately, in England & Wales the authorities seem to think that
various paths need to be categorised into various randomly defined
types, and that users of said paths need to be bound by petty rules and
regulations rather than rely on common sense. The Scots just do away
with all that!

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

Paul Boyd said:

Unfortunately, in England & Wales the authorities seem to think that
various paths need to be categorised into various randomly defined
types, and that users of said paths need to be bound by petty rules and
regulations rather than rely on common sense.

As for roads then, particularly with regards to the raft of petty laws
and regulations concerned with motor vehicle use.

Quoted message said:

The Scots just do away
with all that!

Do they have mass carnage? I haven't heard of it. Perhaps there are
lessons to be learned there for our roads too.

--
Matt B

x-no-archive:Paul Boyd said:

Unfortunately, in England & Wales the authorities seem to think that
various paths need to be categorised into various randomly defined
types, and that users of said paths need to be bound by petty rules and
regulations rather than rely on common sense. The Scots just do away
with all that!

Unfortunately, the idea that Scotland is a walker's paradise is in part
a myth. As there are few rights of way, landowners are not prevented
from putting an obstruction over a path that starts getting used
regularly by walkers. 8 foot deer fences are an example. Further, many
paths have been allowed to disappear through lack of use, or lack of
awareness that they exist. In general, England & Wales are vastly
superior to Scotland for localised country walking.

Right to roam may sound great in principle, but having the right to walk
across miles of pathless fields of turnips, each one surrounded on four
sides by barbed wire isn't really much use.

Sue White said:

A booklet issued by the RSPB says "By law, cyclists must give way to
pedestrians and horse riders on bridleways".

Who would not want to give way to a horse? :-)

~PB

Matt B said:

Quoted message said:

The Scots just do away with all that!

Do they have mass carnage? I haven't heard of it. Perhaps there are
lessons to be learned there for our roads too.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/legislation/scotland/acts2003/asp_20030002_en_1

--
Don Whybrow

Sequi Bonum Non Time

"So tell me, just how long have you had this feeling that no one
is watching you?" (Christopher Locke: Entropy Gradient Reversals)

"Pete Biggs" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Sue White said:

A booklet issued by the RSPB says "By law, cyclists must give way to
pedestrians and horse riders on bridleways".

Who would not want to give way to a horse? :-)

~PB

Especially if there is an attractive female rider on it.

raisethe said the following on 20/12/2007 22:13:

Quoted message said:

Unfortunately, the idea that Scotland is a walker's paradise is in part
a myth. As there are few rights of way, landowners are not prevented
from putting an obstruction over a path that starts getting used
regularly by walkers.

I was really thinking more about the cycling angle - where if there's a
path, you can cycle on it without having to worry about whether it
suddenly and for no apparent reason becomes a footpath. In E&W, we have
to faff about carefully planning off-road routes to make sure we stay
legal - we can't just take off on an interesting looking path without
having to check to see if it's bridleway, and we can't take off across
open moorland at all.

Quoted message said:

Right to roam may sound great in principle, but having the right to walk
across miles of pathless fields of turnips, each one surrounded on four
sides by barbed wire isn't really much use.

As far as I understand it, there is no right to walk across miles of
pathless fields of turnips in Scotland - I thought there was something
specific about not damaging crops.

Anyway, even in E&W, most users of various paths are fine about mountain
bikes so long as the rider extends the normal courtesies, regardless of
the type of path. The trouble is that you always get the odd idiot who
hammers down a trail scattering walkers far and wide. They do cyclists
no favours at all.

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

Paul Boyd said:

Anyway, even in E&W, most users of various paths are fine about mountain
bikes so long as the rider extends the normal courtesies, regardless of
the type of path. The trouble is that you always get the odd idiot who
hammers down a trail scattering walkers far and wide. They do cyclists
no favours at all.

The last time I saw this happen was in Salcey Forest. 2 riders came past
much too fast - fortunately we were aware of them and just off the track. I
arrived back at the road a few minutes later and, sure enough, the bikes
were being strapped on to cretin-crates. Perhaps the M1 being only half a
mile away had something to do with it.
--
Peter.
You don't understand Newton's Third Law of Motion?
It's not rocket science, you know.

On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 20:24:25 +0000, Sue White <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

A booklet issued by the RSPB says "By law, cyclists must give way to
pedestrians and horse riders on bridleways".

I wonder what this has to do with birds? ;-)

M

x-no-archive:Paul Boyd said:

As far as I understand it, there is no right to walk across miles of
pathless fields of turnips in Scotland - I thought there was something
specific about not damaging crops.

Yes, you may be right. Another obstacle to walking in Scotland.

Quoted message said:

Anyway, even in E&W, most users of various paths are fine about mountain
bikes so long as the rider extends the normal courtesies, regardless of
the type of path. The trouble is that you always get the odd idiot who
hammers down a trail scattering walkers far and wide. They do cyclists
no favours at all.

Agreed, mountain bikers (and road legal motorcycles) are simply not, in
general, a problem for walkers. Access for MTBs on all unsurfaced
footpaths may in fact not be an unreasonable proposition.

Paul Boyd usenet.is.worse@plusnet said:

raisethe said the following on 20/12/2007 22:13:

Quoted message said:

Unfortunately, the idea that Scotland is a walker's paradise is in part
a myth. As there are few rights of way, landowners are not prevented
from putting an obstruction over a path that starts getting used
regularly by walkers.

I was really thinking more about the cycling angle - where if there's a
path, you can cycle on it without having to worry about whether it
suddenly and for no apparent reason becomes a footpath.  In E&W, we have
to faff about carefully planning off-road routes to make sure we stay
legal - we can't just take off on an interesting looking path without
having to check to see if it's bridleway, and we can't take off across
open moorland at all.

Quoted message said:

Right to roam may sound great in principle, but having the right to walk
across  miles of pathless fields of turnips, each one surrounded on four
sides by barbed wire isn't really much use.

As far as I understand it, there is no right to walk across miles of
pathless fields of turnips in Scotland - I thought there was something
specific about not damaging crops.

Anyway, even in E&W, most users of various paths are fine about mountain
bikes so long as the rider extends the normal courtesies, regardless of
the type of path.  The trouble is that you always get the odd idiot who
hammers down a trail scattering walkers far and wide.  They do cyclists
no favours at all.

--
Paul Boydhttp://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

Actually as far as I am aware the recent NERC bill has changed the
playing field, it was mentioned on the CTC web site.

I think it is 'if a cyclist has used a footpath for 20 years without
hindrance they can claim it as a cycle route' the article refers to
'Restricted Byeways' though

see:- http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4428

Ted

On 21/12/2007 10:55, Mark said,

Quoted message said:

I wonder what this has to do with birds? ;-)

See Adam Lea's post ;-)

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

raisethe said:

x-no-archive:Paul Boyd said:

Unfortunately, in England & Wales the authorities seem to think that
various paths need to be categorised into various randomly defined
types, and that users of said paths need to be bound by petty rules and
regulations rather than rely on common sense. The Scots just do away
with all that!

Unfortunately, the idea that Scotland is a walker's paradise is in part
a myth. As there are few rights of way, landowners are not prevented
from putting an obstruction over a path that starts getting used
regularly by walkers. 8 foot deer fences are an example.

Oh, yes, they bloody are. That is completely illegal. If anyone has been
doing it in your locality go straight to the access officer at your local
council and ask him to serve an enforcement order. That fence comes down -
or gates or a style get fitted. You do not have a right to damage the
fence, but you do have a right to ask the local council to do so. They can
physically destroy the thing, /and/ charge the landowner for the cost of
doing it!

Quoted message said:

Further, many
paths have been allowed to disappear through lack of use, or lack of
awareness that they exist.

You don't need a path. The law is you can walk (or cycle) /anywhere/, with
only a few tightly defined exceptions, and for the landowner to
deliberately obstruct access - /anywhere/ outside those tightly defined
exceptions - is an offence.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; Diplomacy, American: see Intelligence, Military

Paul Boyd said:

Quoted message said:

Right to roam may sound great in principle, but having the right to walk
across  miles of pathless fields of turnips, each one surrounded on four
sides by barbed wire isn't really much use.

As far as I understand it, there is no right to walk across miles of
pathless fields of turnips in Scotland.

Oh, yes, there is.

Quoted message said:

- I thought there was something
specific about not damaging crops.

You may not damage crops. But you don't normally damage crops - except
cereals in the last few days before harvest - by walking (or cycling)
through them.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; I'd rather live in sybar-space

x-no-archive:Simon Brooke said:

Quoted message said:

Unfortunately, the idea that Scotland is a walker's paradise is in part
a myth. As there are few rights of way, landowners are not prevented
from putting an obstruction over a path that starts getting used
regularly by walkers. 8 foot deer fences are an example.

Oh, yes, they bloody are. That is completely illegal. If anyone has been
doing it in your locality go straight to the access officer at your local
council and ask him to serve an enforcement order. That fence comes down -
or gates or a style get fitted. You do not have a right to damage the
fence, but you do have a right to ask the local council to do so. They can
physically destroy the thing, /and/ charge the landowner for the cost of
doing it!

Interesting, thank you. I will do that next time I come to a blockage
and see what happens. Maybe no-one is bothered or are too intimidated to
deal with the issue.

How about river bank footpaths on estates, for use by fishermen? These
are frequently terminated by a fence, maybe setting out boundaries, but
are often climbable with a little difficulty. Is it legal to climb over
these fences, taking your bike with you, as long as no damage is caused
to the fence?

Finally, it is not uncommon to come across a field of inquisitive bulls.
Is it the farmers responsibility to indicate any potential danger on the
entrance to a field (I think they do that in E&W) or does one roam at
ones own risk?

Thanks
Ray