drossall wrote: ↑12 Mar 2024, 10:15pm
Pete Owens wrote: ↑12 Mar 2024, 10:04pmBut just because a route is designated as a public footpath does not mean of itself that cycling is illegal. For that you need explicit no cycling signs.
I'm not sure I understand this. As I see it, if a route is designated as a public footpath, there is no more reason to believe that cycling is allowed than for cutting across a random field where no rights of way are designated at all.
If you don't understand then imagine the opposite case - The government enacts a law hat makes it illegal to go anywhere that is not explicitly a right of way. (and I wouldn't put it past the current lot to attempt to outlaw trespass) So from tomorrow:
You want to visit your local park - not a right of way - illegal.
You want to visit a shop in a private arcade - not a right of way - illegal.
You want to cross a car park to reach a supermarket - not a right of way - illegal.
You want to stroll across your housing estate on purpose built paved paths - not rights of way - illegal.
You want to ride along the Bristol-Bath cycleway - not a right of way - illegal.
You want to walk along a beach, go rock climbing, go caving... not rights of way - illegal.
You want to ride on a forest track - not a right of way - illegal.
Now you are not accessing any of these places by right. The council may close the park at night or for a special event, the arcade might be locked outside shopping hours, a landowner may charge to visit a cave or a waterfall, they might bar access to the forest track with a locked gate, on a public footpath there may be stiles or kissing gates that are impassable on a bike. But the absence of a right does not of itself mean a prohibition.