Cycling on Footpaths

[Stmedia]

I’m new to cycling and I’m building up a collection of circular routes around my home. One route brings me close to the River Tees and I’ve noticed signposts to the Teasdale Way. I’d like to follow this route but all descriptions online are about a walking route. What are the protocols of cycling on a footpath. Is it a no no or is it OK?

[Mick F]

Good morning, and welcome to the forum!

I think the first thing to ask is if the footpath you describe is a Public Footpath or not?
If it is, using one with a vehicle of any sort is illegal.
If it's just a path, all bets are off.

Someone may come up with better info shortly, and no doubt someone will know the route well.

[NATURAL ANKLING]

Hi,
On the grand scheme of things.
It’s not like cycling on a pavement.
If you’re in fields or on open land otherwise common land I think you will be perfectly okay .
Just respect other Users.

(Type using my voice)

[Stmedia]

It is a Public Footpath a well known walking Route. So is a Bicycle a “vehicle”? Mind you part of the Teesdale Way links directly to a Cycle Path I was on which is how I found it and then it becomes a disused road.

[mjr]

Good morning, and welcome to the forum!

I think the first thing to ask is if the footpath you describe is a Public Footpath or not?
If it is, using one with a vehicle of any sort is illegal.
If it's just a path, all bets are off.

Someone may come up with better info shortly, and no doubt someone will know the route well.

It seems to be CUK's current opinion that cycling along a footpath is not illegal as long as you're reasonable and not trying to annoy others. For example, https://www.cyclinguk.org/article/campa ... h-trespass

If you're prosecuted and a CUK member, I'd expect CUK to help.

This is different from cycling along a footway (commonly called a pavement or trod, an area along the edge of a highway set aside for walking), which is normally illegal but current advice is not to prosecute reasonable use where someone feels cycling along the adjacent carriageway would be dangerously unsafe.

[pwa]

I'd first investigate by walking the bit of "path" in question. Find out what it actually is. If it is Public Footpath in countryside, then no you shouldn't be cycling on it. If it is designated as Bridleway you can. But if it is a surfaced path / track you should look out for signs that indicate what categories of user are welcome. If you don't see any, you reach a point where your common sense and social awareness kick in. By asking the question you show that you care, so I'd be confident you would make a good choice if you had to. Based on safety and impact on other path users.

[meic]

Sounds to me from here that it is a definite no-no.
However if I thought I could do such a thing without annoying anybody then I would do so.
Using it when there are no or very few walkers about, getting off and pulling the bike out of their way a good time before they would need to consider moving out of my way, always deferring to their right to be there and acknowledging my lack of any such rights. If this made using the path too much of a pain for me then I would give up on it.

[Stmedia]

Thanks for all your answers. I think I’ll reccie the route on foot first. Get the lay of the land. That part of my route is serviced a perfectly good cycle path but it’s by a busy road and I’d prefer to be by the river. In the short time I’ve been Cycling I’ve found people on these trails, walking, running, dog walking, cycling are mostly friendly, courteous and considerate. A breath of fresh air. So if I use that route I’ll adopt those same principles.

[iandriver]

There are websites out there such as https://www.cyclestreets.net/ or https://cycle.travel/map the use Open Street Map data. They are generally pretty good for showing cycle-able paths. This might be a starting point to seer if your route comes up with an appropriate highlight.

[mjr]

It is a Public Footpath a well known walking Route. So is a Bicycle a “vehicle”? Mind you part of the Teesdale Way links directly to a Cycle Path I was on which is how I found it and then it becomes a disused road.

Normally, a bicycle is a vehicle and a carriage. However, it's not a motor vehicle or mechanically-propelled vehicle. I think the closest similar vehicle in law is a horse-drawn carriage.

Look up the Teesdale Way on an OS map (copies on various sites - I find http://www.streetmap.co.uk easiest) and see how it's marked. On the mid-scale landranger type (one or two zooms in from the road atlas type), long pink dashes mean bridleway and well-spaced pink circles mean restricted byway (cycling allowed for sure on those) while short pink dashes mean footpath (CUK says reasonable cycling allowed, others disagree, not really tested in court AFAIK). Black dashes or parallel lines mean uncertain status.

I cycled part of the Fen Rivers Way yesterday. I passed no signs to do so: I just rode along a dead-end road which then turned into a dirt track and went up onto the river bank. When I met walkers with dogs, I paused for a few seconds, dismounted, with the bike between me and the untethered dogs while they passed, exchanging smiles and greetings. The gates at the end were easier to get through than many inflicted on cycleways. Checking the OS map now, I see that section is bridleway, but there were no signs indicating that anywhere, so the walkers wouldn't know either.

[Mick F]

It seems to be CUK's current opinion that cycling along a footpath is not illegal as long as you're reasonable and not trying to annoy others. For example, https://www.cyclinguk.org/article/campa ... h-trespass

That link to the CUK website doesn't say PUBLIC FOOTPATH, just "footpath".

There is a big difference.
If they meant Public Footpath, they would have said.

[mjr]

It seems to be CUK's current opinion that cycling along a footpath is not illegal as long as you're reasonable and not trying to annoy others. For example, https://www.cyclinguk.org/article/campa ... h-trespass

That link to the CUK website doesn't say PUBLIC FOOTPATH, just "footpath".

There is a big difference.
If they meant Public Footpath, they would have said.

I think that's overinterpreting it. "Footpaths, on the other hand, are stand-alone paths which include around 80% of public paths in the countryside as well as many urban paths supplementing the road network" wouldn't make sense if footpath didn't include Public Footpath.

[Paulatic]

Sounds to me from here that it is a definite no-no.
However if I thought I could do such a thing without annoying anybody then I would do so.
Using it when there are no or very few walkers about, getting off and pulling the bike out of their way a good time before they would need to consider moving out of my way, always deferring to their right to be there and acknowledging my lack of any such rights. If this made using the path too much of a pain for me then I would give up on it.

Spot on advice
I find MapOut a great resource for finding out the status.

Further down river shows as footpath only

[pwa]

Widening the discussion, at one of my favourite walking venues there is a proposal to designate a Public Footpath as a bridleway, open to cyclists and horse riders.

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4869303 ... 6?hl=en-GB

As you can see, some of it, most of it, is currently too narrow for walkers and horse riders to meet. Some of the narrow sections are steep. The underlying "soil" is basically sand. But, crucially, there is a history of use by horses of a now overgrown path in roughly the same area. I don't know how I feel about it. Putting mountain bikes and horses on that particular track would ruin it, but the dunes are generally somewhere that horses and bicycles could use quite happily. Horses already use other parts of the dunes without problems.
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4855547 ... 6?hl=en-GB
But anyone who knows anything about horses will know that this soft woodland surface will cut up badly with horses on it.

[foxyrider]

.....is different from cycling along a footway (commonly called a pavement or trod, an area along the edge of a highway set aside for walking), which is normally illegal but current advice is not to prosecute reasonable use where someone feels cycling along the adjacent carriageway would be dangerously unsafe.

Much like today when I used a footpath for @ 400m to avoid riding along the A1 between Elkesley and the B6387! I'm not a huge fan of riding on footways but there are times like this where you are given very little alternative beyond lengthy diversions.

OTOH if something is signed as a footpath i'm not even going to think about it - life's too short for the potential grief!