Cycling on public footpaths

al_Mossah said:

Sorry if this is just another re-run of old discussions, but I'd welcome views.

Near me there is a public footpath across the Bowood Estate, owned by the Marquis of Lansdowne
near Calne in Wiltshire. The path is probably 2 miles or so long, most of which is a tarmacced
drive for access to various estate houses. The remainder is a wide track, muddy in places at this
time of year.

There is a sign at both ends saying "No cycling". This is unfortunate, as the path nicely
completes a 30km mainly off-road route for me. So naturally I cycle it, and have done so twice now
with no problems. (There is only one gate to negotiate).

Some day I expect to be challenged as to why I'm cycling, and intend, with all due politeness, to
claim that I have the right to be on a public footpath, and that there is no law (in England)
saying that one cannot ride a bicycle on such a path. (AFAIK there is no law allowing it either,
but hey.). I am therefore not committing a criminal act. As I will not have caused any damage, I
don't think that I will be subject to any civil action, but that will be up to the challenger.

I intend to write to the Marquis asking him if he objects to my riding, but would be interested to
know any views as to my legal status should he say "bog off" or words to that effect, and I
continue to ride the path. I note that the CTC site says that I ". have the right to push a cycle
along a footpath but not cycle on a footpath". Does anyone have the right to stop me?

Peter

A good article on rights of way and cycling can be found at

thebikezone.org.ukoffroadlaw.htmlOpen ↗ I hope that answers
some of your questions.

rgds

Malcolm

al_Mossah said:

Sorry if this is just another re-run of old discussions, but I'd welcome views.

Near me there is a public footpath across the Bowood Estate, owned by the Marquis of Lansdowne
near Calne in Wiltshire. The path is probably 2 miles or so long, most of which is a tarmacced
drive for access to various estate houses. The remainder is a wide track, muddy in places at this
time of year.

There is a sign at both ends saying "No cycling". This is unfortunate, as the path nicely completes
a 30km mainly off-road route for me. So naturally I cycle it, and have done so twice now with no
problems. (There is only one gate to negotiate).

Some day I expect to be challenged as to why I'm cycling, and intend, with all due politeness, to
claim that I have the right to be on a public footpath, and that there is no law (in England)
saying that one cannot ride a bicycle on such a path. (AFAIK there is no law allowing it either,
but hey.). I am therefore not committing a criminal act. As I will not have caused any damage, I
don't think that I will be subject to any civil action, but that will be up to the challenger.

I intend to write to the Marquis asking him if he objects to my riding, but would be interested to
know any views as to my legal status should he say "bog off" or words to that effect, and I
continue to ride the path. I note that the CTC site says that I ". have the right to push a cycle
along a footpath but not cycle on a footpath". Does anyone have the right to stop me.

You are not permitted to ride bikes on public footpaths. In general, this is a good thing; quiet
country footpaths should not be treated as MTB 'trails'. Bridleways etc can be used freely. Where
the path has been made up as and used as a road, the moral issue of pedestrian priority might be
diluted somewhat, though.

Trespass always used to be a civil matter but I don't know if it has become part of the seemingly
exponentially growing criminal law. I always used to trespass (on foot) with gay abandon and, apart
from once or twice being pointed towards the nearest right of way, never had any problems. I think
George Monbiot wrote an article about trespass once; I'll see if I can find it....Here it is...
monbiot.comdsp article.cfmOpen ↗

How the encounter with the land owner would run might be interesting but you need to be aware that,
legally, you are in the wrong and he could get an injunction to keep you off his land. The fact that
he's bothered to put up signs indicates that he has decided not to permit cyclin on the route.

In article <[email hidden]>, one of infinite monkeys

at the keyboard of 'Not Responding said:

Quoted message said:

I intend to write to the Marquis asking him if he objects to my riding, but

He won't know from your letter whether there's a hidden agenda. No cycling notices don't necessarily
mean they're going to worry about cyclists in general; it might just be there because they've had
(or anticipate) a problem with irresponsible cyclists.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

would be interested to know any views as to my legal status should he say "bog off" or words to
that effect, and I continue to ride the path. I note

If it's private land, you'd be trespassing without the benefit of legal protection that the
existence of a footpath confers on walkers.

Quoted message said:

You are not permitted to ride bikes on public footpaths. In general, this is a good thing; quiet
country footpaths should not be treated as MTB 'trails'. Bridleways etc can be used freely. Where
the path has been made up as and used as a road, the moral issue of pedestrian priority might be
diluted somewhat, though.

Pedestrian priority should never be in doubt, and the Marquis would unquestionably be right to come
down heavily on anyone who cycled in a manner that might intimidate pedestrians - e.g. fast past
them, or even cycled at all if it was busy.

Quoted message said:

How the encounter with the land owner would run might be interesting but you need to be aware
that, legally, you are in the wrong and he could get an injunction to keep you off his land. The
fact that he's bothered to put up signs indicates that he has decided not to permit cyclin on
the route.

If I were to ride in that kind of circumstances, I'd always give way to peds, get off and walk
on those stretches where I might leave tracks, and I'd be prepared to take a "sorry sir"
attitude if stopped.

IANAL.

--
Hutton: Nobody is asking why Blair was so keen to have a damaging inquiry into a minor side-issue of
going to war.

So, what has he successfully deflected media attention from?

al_Mossah said:

Sorry if this is just another re-run of old discussions, but I'd welcome views.

Near me there is a public footpath across the Bowood Estate, owned by the Marquis of Lansdowne
near Calne in Wiltshire. The path is probably 2 miles or so long, most of which is a tarmacced
drive for access to various estate houses. The remainder is a wide track, muddy in places at this
time of year.

--snip

I'd ride it and if there are any hassles ever (unlikely) be polite and claim ignorance to the law if
challenged. Be courteous to those on foot. At worst you're going to have to push. I doubt it will
come to that though. Prety much the same as I use for riding on pavements when I have to.

al_Mossah said:

Sorry if this is just another re-run of old discussions, but I'd welcome views.

Near me there is a public footpath across the Bowood Estate, owned by the Marquis of Lansdowne
near Calne in Wiltshire. The path is probably 2 miles or so long, most of which is a tarmacced
drive for access to various estate houses. The remainder is a wide track, muddy in places at this
time of year.

There is a sign at both ends saying "No cycling". This is unfortunate, as the path nicely
completes a 30km mainly off-road route for me. So naturally I cycle it, and have done so twice now
with no problems. (There is only one gate to negotiate).

Some day I expect to be challenged as to why I'm cycling, and intend, with all due politeness, to
claim that I have the right to be on a public footpath, and that there is no law (in England)
saying that one cannot ride a bicycle on such a path. (AFAIK there is no law allowing it either,
but hey.). I am therefore not committing a criminal act. As I will not have caused any damage, I
don't think that I will be subject to any civil action, but that will be up to the challenger.

I intend to write to the Marquis asking him if he objects to my riding, but would be interested to
know any views as to my legal status should he say "bog off" or words to that effect, and I
continue to ride the path. I note that the CTC site says that I ". have the right to push a cycle
along a footpath but not cycle on a footpath". Does anyone have the right to stop me?

Your best bet is to get permission. If it is a footpath then you are committing an act of trespass
if you cycle on it since you only have permission to pass and repass on foot. The landowner then is
able to ask you to leave his land and use reasonable force to achieve it. He can sue you in a civil
case for any damage you might have caused but that is unlikely to happen. If you persist in cycling
on his land he can have an injunction taken out to stop you whereupon it moves to a criminal matter
enforced by the Courts. The exception is if there is a bye law banning cycling when it becomes a
criminal offence from the start.

So best to write explain and why you would like to and ask if he would give permission for you to
cycle. If he doesn't agree then probably best to find an alternative route as sooner or later it
will come to a head in a way that will not enhance his view of cyclists.

Tony

al_Mossah said:

Sorry if this is just another re-run of old discussions, but I'd welcome views.

Near me there is a public footpath across the Bowood Estate, owned by the Marquis of Lansdowne
near Calne in Wiltshire. The path is probably 2 miles or so long, most of which is a tarmacced
drive for access to various estate houses. The remainder is a wide track, muddy in places at this
time of year.

There is a sign at both ends saying "No cycling". This is unfortunate, as the path nicely
completes a 30km mainly off-road route for me. So naturally I cycle it, and have done so twice now
with no problems. (There is only one gate to negotiate).

Some day I expect to be challenged as to why I'm cycling, and intend, with all due politeness, to
claim that I have the right to be on a public footpath, and that there is no law (in England)
saying that one cannot ride a bicycle on such a path. (AFAIK there is no law allowing it either,
but hey.). I am therefore not committing a criminal act. As I will not have caused any damage, I
don't think that I will be subject to any civil action, but that will be up to the challenger.

I intend to write to the Marquis asking him if he objects to my riding, but would be interested to
know any views as to my legal status should he say "bog off" or words to that effect, and I
continue to ride the path. I note that the CTC site says that I ". have the right to push a cycle
along a footpath but not cycle on a footpath". Does anyone have the right to stop me?

According to the letter of the law you can't even PUSH a bike on a footpath. However, case law has
overturned this one. You definitely can't ride it though.

"[Not Responding]" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I intend to write to the Marquis asking him if he objects to my riding

A polite request, stating that it saves road danger, would seem to be a reasonable thing to do.

Quoted message said:

How the encounter with the land owner would run might be interesting

Indeed. If he's a goml then you're doomed, otherwise you might be pleasantly surprised.

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
chapmancentral.demon.co.ukchapmancentral.demon.co.ukOpen ↗

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 15:46:30 +0000 someone who may be "[Not
Responding]" <[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Trespass always used to be a civil matter but I don't know if it has become part of the seemingly
exponentially growing criminal law.

Except for railways that was the case. However, then along came Michael Howard and his 1994 Criminal
Injustice Act. If the landowner claims that you are disrupting them in any way then it becomes
Aggravated Trespass and a criminal matter.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked
keys, unless the UK government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

"Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Your best bet is to get permission.

Quite.

Quoted message said:

If it is a footpath then you are committing an act of trespass if you cycle on it since you only
have permission to pass and repass on foot. The landowner then is able to ask

you

Quoted message said:

to leave his land and use reasonable force to achieve it.

Assuming it's a public right of way, if you get off and push following a challenge I wonder if he
still has that right?

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
chapmancentral.demon.co.ukchapmancentral.demon.co.ukOpen ↗

Zog The Undeniable said:

According to the letter of the law you can't even PUSH a bike on a footpath. However, case law has
overturned this one. You definitely can't ride it though.

Case law hasn't overturned it - it has never been tested in the case of pushing a bicycle on a
footpath. Some are extrapolating the Crank v Brooks ruling to a footpath and citing a DfT letter in
support. The DfT letter is irrelevant as it is the Courts, not the DfT who interpret law and the
validity of the Crank v Brooks ruling to this case would be something for the Courts to consider if
it ever came before them

Tony

Jinx said:

al_Mossah said:

Sorry if this is just another re-run of old discussions, but I'd welcome views.

Near me there is a public footpath across the Bowood Estate, owned by the Marquis of Lansdowne
near Calne in Wiltshire. The path is probably 2 miles or so long, most of which is a tarmacced
drive for access to various estate houses. The remainder is a wide track, muddy in places at
this time of year.

There is a sign at both ends saying "No cycling". This is unfortunate, as the path nicely
completes a 30km mainly off-road route for me. So naturally I cycle it, and have done so twice
now with no problems. (There is only one gate to negotiate).

Some day I expect to be challenged as to why I'm cycling, and intend, with all due politeness,
to claim that I have the right to be on a public footpath, and that there is no law (in England)
saying that one cannot ride a bicycle on such a path. (AFAIK there is no law allowing it either,
but hey.). I am therefore not committing a criminal act. As I will not have caused any damage, I
don't think that I will be subject to any civil action, but that will be up to the challenger.

I intend to write to the Marquis asking him if he objects to my riding, but would be interested
to know any views as to my legal status should he say "bog off" or words to that effect, and I
continue to ride the path. I note that the CTC site says that I ". have the right to push a
cycle along a footpath but not cycle on a footpath". Does anyone have the right to stop me?

A good article on rights of way and cycling can be found at

thebikezone.org.ukoffroadlaw.htmlOpen ↗ I hope that answers
some of your questions.

It's worth noting that although this article may have relevence to cycling in 'the UK', it is not
relevant to Scotland, where the law is thankfully different. Specifically, contra what it says in
the article, under the Land Reform Act 2003 it is explicitly legal to cycle virtually anywhere in
Scotland with only a few exceptions (you may not cycle in the immediate private lands of a dwelling
house, or through someone else's tent, or a few other fairly obviously sensible places) - certainly
it is legal to cycle anywhere it is legal to walk.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) jasmine.org.uk~simonOpen ↗

;; Want to know what SCO stands for? ;; ars.userfriendly.orgcartoonsOpen ↗

Not Responding said:

al_Mossah said:

Sorry if this is just another re-run of old discussions, but I'd welcome views.

Near me there is a public footpath across the Bowood Estate, owned by the Marquis of Lansdowne
near Calne in Wiltshire. The path is probably 2 miles or so long, most of which is a tarmacced
drive for access to various estate houses. The remainder is a wide track, muddy in places at this
time of year.

There is a sign at both ends saying "No cycling". This is unfortunate, as the path nicely
completes a 30km mainly off-road route for me. So naturally I cycle it, and have done so twice
now with no problems. (There is only one gate to negotiate).

Some day I expect to be challenged as to why I'm cycling, and intend, with all due politeness, to
claim that I have the right to be on a public footpath, and that there is no law (in England)
saying that one cannot ride a bicycle on such a path. (AFAIK there is no law allowing it either,
but hey.). I am therefore not committing a criminal act. As I will not have caused any damage, I
don't think that I will be subject to any civil action, but that will be up to the challenger.

I intend to write to the Marquis asking him if he objects to my riding, but would be interested
to know any views as to my legal status should he say "bog off" or words to that effect, and I
continue to ride the path. I note that the CTC site says that I ". have the right to push a cycle
along a footpath but not cycle on a footpath". Does anyone have the right to stop me.

You are not permitted to ride bikes on public footpaths.

...in England and Wales...

Quoted message said:

In general, this is a good thing; quiet country footpaths should not be treated as MTB 'trails'.
Bridleways etc can be used freely. Where the path has been made up as and used as a road, the
moral issue of pedestrian priority might be diluted somewhat, though.

Trespass always used to be a civil matter but I don't know if it has become part of the seemingly
exponentially growing criminal law.

...in England and Wales...

Quoted message said:

I always used to trespass (on foot) with gay abandon and, apart from once or twice being pointed
towards the nearest right of way, never had any problems. I think George Monbiot wrote an article
about trespass once; I'll see if I can find it....Here it is...
monbiot.comdsp article.cfmOpen ↗

How the encounter with the land owner would run might be interesting but you need to be aware
that, legally, you are in the wrong

...in England and Wales...

Quoted message said:

and he could get an injunction to keep you off his land. The fact that he's bothered to put up
signs indicates that he has decided not to permit cyclin on the route.

What you need is one of these: <URL:
hmso.gov.uk20030002.htmOpen ↗ >

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) jasmine.org.uk~simonOpen ↗

;; Want to know what SCO stands for? ;; ars.userfriendly.orgcartoonsOpen ↗

Stephen \(aka steford\) said:

al_Mossah said:

Sorry if this is just another re-run of old discussions, but I'd welcome views.

Near me there is a public footpath across the Bowood Estate, owned by the Marquis of Lansdowne
near Calne in Wiltshire. The path is probably 2 miles or so long, most of which is a tarmacced
drive for access to various estate houses. The remainder is a wide track, muddy in places at this
time of year.

--snip

I'd ride it and if there are any hassles ever (unlikely) be polite and claim ignorance to the law
if challenged.

Ignornce of the law might be hard to claim with a sign at each end saying "No cycling".

Be courteous to those on foot. At worst

Quoted message said:

you're going to have to push. I doubt it will come to that though. Prety much the same as I use for
riding on pavements when I have to.

I think you mean "ride on pavements when I choose to". You don't _have_ to ride on pavements.

Tim
--
Blue Witch laughed at me

David Hansen said:

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 15:46:30 +0000 someone who may be "[Not Responding]"
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Trespass always used to be a civil matter but I don't know if it has become part of the seemingly
exponentially growing criminal law.

Except for railways that was the case. However, then along came Michael Howard and his 1994
Criminal Injustice Act. If the landowner claims that you are disrupting them in any way then it
becomes Aggravated Trespass and a criminal matter.

Found it :

"68.—(1) A person commits the offence of aggravated trespass if he trespasses on land in the open
air and, in relation to any lawful activity which persons are engaging in or are about to engage
in on that or adjoining land in the open air, does there anything which is intended by him to have
the effect—
(a) of intimidating those persons or any of them so as to deter them or any of them from engaging
in that activity,
(b) of obstructing that activity, or
(c) of disrupting that activity."

The landowner can claim any amount of disruption that he cares. It is the 'intent' that is important
in law. To get yourself arrested a passing uniformed copper would have to be convinced that you
intended to cause disruption/intimidation. If you're out for a stroll across private land and simply
shrug and head for the road when confronted, you'll be fine.

Unless the copper in question is out to get you for something else, that is. And that is the problem
with having more laws than can be possibly implemented.

Just zis Guy said:

"[Not Responding]" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I intend to write to the Marquis asking him if he objects to my riding

A polite request, stating that it saves road danger, would seem to be a reasonable thing to do.

But cycling on the road is not dangerous........

pk

Just zis Guy said:

Assuming it's a public right of way, if you get off and push following a challenge I wonder if he
still has that right?

Yes because you have by then committed the trespass. In the same way as offering to put stuff back
on the shelves when challenged isn't a way to get off a shoplifting charge.

Tony

you know? said:

"Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message -"]news:[email hidden]-
berlin.de...

Quoted message said:

Your best bet is to get permission.

Quite.

Talking purely trespass (ie walking), I'd say asking permission[1] is the last thing you should do.
Particularly if the landowner has gone out of his way to put up two signs indicating that he doesn't
want you there.

[1] "It's better to ask forgiveness than ask permission" is a motto that has served me well in life.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If it is a footpath then you are committing an act of trespass if you cycle on it since you only
have permission to pass and repass on foot. The landowner then is able to ask

you

Quoted message said:

to leave his land and use reasonable force to achieve it.

Assuming it's a public right of way, if you get off and push following a challenge I wonder if he
still has that right?

Indeed. And that's where the encounter gets more complicated and interesting because of a bicycle.

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 19:05:05 GMT, Simon Brooke <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

...in England and Wales...

...in England and Wales...

...in England and Wales...

etc.

True. But we're talking about Wiltshire. That's in England not bloody Scotland🙂

Quoted message said:

Case law hasn't overturned it - it has never been tested in the case of pushing a bicycle on a
footpath. Some are extrapolating the Crank v Brooks ruling to a footpath and citing a DfT letter
in support. The DfT letter is irrelevant as it is the Courts, not the DfT who interpret law and
the validity of the Crank v Brooks ruling to this case would be something for the Courts to
consider if it ever came before them

Tony

From the CTC newsletter Colin Palmer produced.

CYCLING AND FOOTPATHS -

THE CTC POSITION

Cycling on a footpath constitutes a trespass and the landowner can require him/her to leave.

The act of pushing a bicycle on a footpath is legally less certain - but is supported by a number
of events.

1. Crank v Brooks 1980 In this case a motorist was prosecuted for injuring a cyclist pushing a cycle
across a zebra crossing. In his judgment Lord Waller said ‘... the fact that the injured party
had a bicycle in her hand did not mean that she was no longer a pedestrian".

2. This judgment was reinforced by the Department of Transport in a letter written in 1994 in which
they confirm "....that a cyclist pushing a bicycle on a pedestrian facility is regarded as a
pedestrian".

A footpath is a pedestrian facility in the same way as a zebra crossing or footway, so the law can
reasonably be assumed not to differentiate between rural and urban use.

3. The latest highway code illustrates a NO ENTRY sign with the words " no vehicles except cycles
being pushed". The bicycle is defined in law as a vehicle, but here, the DTLR is clearly stating
that a bicycle while being pushed loses its vehicular status.

A contrary view is taken by the Ramblers Association and the Open Spaces Society, who in the Rights
of Way - a Guide to Law and Practice state "It is submitted that a bicycle is not a ‘natural
accompaniment' of a user of a footpath, and to push or carry one along a footpath is to commit a
trespass against the landowner".

A typical legitimate use could be to use a footpath as a link for pushing between two cycling
permitted paths. The CTC recognises, though,that it may not always be appropriate to take your bike
for a walk. For example, use of such facilities by groups of cyclists, or as part of a competition
could be seen as provocative - and should be avoided.'

I like this from the Monbiot essay. He could have been talking about us...

'Our exclusion from rural Britain is the most manifest of class barriers. Forced to sneak around the
fabric of the nation like outlaws, our dispossession from the countryside confines us, physically,
to the margins of society.'

Ps. I will have to update my page on RoW law, as it has been pointed out things are changing
in Scotland.

Regards,

Howard.