Cycling on public footpaths

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

al_Mossah wrote:
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

http://www.thebikezone.org.uk/thebik...ffroadlaw.html
I hope that answers some of your questions.

rgds

Malcolm

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 14:54:48 +0000 (UTC), "al_Mossah"
wrote:

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...
http://www.monbiot.com/dsp_article.cfm?article_id=195

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 , one of infinite monkeys
at the keyboard of "[Not Responding]" wrote:

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.

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.

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.

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?

"[Not Responding]" wrote in message
...

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.

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.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk

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

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.

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 16:27:38 +0000, David Hansen
wrote:

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

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.

al_Mossah wrote:
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 wrote:
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

[Not Responding] wrote:

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.

That is intended to stop you going onto private land with the purpose of
disrupting the activity of others e.g. disrupting a fox hunt. It is almost
impossible to see it being applied to cycling along a footpath in the absence
of other factors, like a hunt being congregated on the footpath.

Tony