foxyrider wrote: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!
Meh, you get grief for cycling most places with roughly equal chance IMO, as long as it's not obviously silly or nasty.
I've been shouted at to get on the road while on a cycleway (including once by a motorist ), shouted at to get on the cycle path when on the road (where there was no cycle path) and shouted at to ring my bell when they'd ignored me ringing it three times on approach already... but I've never yet been shouted at for cycling on a signed footpath - although there aren't many I use often. As long as you don't buzz walkers or kick dogs, I suspect there aren't many rural footpaths where it'll be a problem. It's definitely not a fast way to get around, though!
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
In England and Wales, a footpath across land is a right of way. This means that if you are on private land where you might otherwise be a trespasser, you are ok if you are walking across it on a footpath. In simple terms, the remedies available to the occupier of the land if you misuse the right of way are as though you were a trespasser. This is generally a civil matter not involving prosecution.
Normally, the only situations where there might be a prosecution for cycling on a footpath are (a) when the footpath is alongside a carriageway. As has been noted, this type of footpath is nowadays technically referred to as a footway, and popularly called the pavement. (b) where cycling is prohibited by a byelaw, when there will be proper NO CYCLING signs (Black bike in a red circle)
Cycling on a footway can attract a fixed penalty or prosecution.
I suggest you visit The Hub at the bottom end of Stockton High Street. This is an excellent organisation supported by Sustrans and Stockton Council to promote walking and cycling in the area. They have some very good maps and a wealth of local knowledge and will, I'm sure, be able to advise you on the many cycle routes in the area.
They run a number of guided rides every week for riders of different skill levels and also offer a range of bike maintenance courses. If you register as a member (free) they also provide secure bike parking. There's more... If you want to go on one of the guided rides and don't have a bike, they will provide one. They also recycle bikes in the local community. Brilliant!
mjr wrote: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.
That's not my interpretation. The piece linked to, whilst appearing on a CUK page, seems to be a personal opinion piece. It links in turn to a CUK position statement that takes it for granted that cycling on footpaths is not currently permitted, whilst arguing why the law should be changed (but not ignored or discounted).
But if we assume that exercising a right of way is the only lawful authority to be on the highway, we arrive at some rather odd conclusions. There are numerous activities that routinely take place on highways that are nothing to do with passing along them. Think of children playing, newsvendors selling papers, people chatting with their friends or the Salvation Arm singing hymns. Are they all trespassers who could be removed by the landowners? But if not, then what lawful authority do they have to be there?
In this scenario we are using public land, so we are the landowners as much as anybody else. He then tries to use that to justify using land which is clearly owned by somebody else.
The law assumes, unless there is evidence to the contrary, that highway land is owned by the owners of the land or property each side up to the centre line of the highway.
My deeds show my ownership ending this side of the pavement.
The law assumes, unless there is evidence to the contrary, that highway land is owned by the owners of the land or property each side up to the centre line of the highway.
My deeds show my ownership ending this side of the pavement.
I have seen Land Registry documents clearly showing highway (road, footway and grass verge) as a package of land owned by a Highways Authority.
Gaz's comment may have some face value. However if somebody chooses to park a car on the public highway outside my house which I theoretically own, I cant do anything at all about it. I cant get a court order against them for doing so. All I could do is no more than any other citizen and ask for an obstruction to the highway to be cleared. If on the other hand they parked on a BOAT or had a BBQ on a footpath, I could if I was the landowner make them move on.
Documents of title rarely contain sufficient descriptions to enable one to establish the precise position of a boundary. In such cases legal presumptions relating to certain types of boundary feature may be helpful.
As registration with general boundaries leaves the exact line of the boundary undetermined, the effect of a legal presumption may be carried forward into a registered title. Other available evidence, such as a declaration as to the position or ownership of a boundary, may rebut such a presumption.
Legal presumptions cannot apply when the boundary is determined under section 60 of the Land Registration Act 2002. Because this establishes the exact line of the legal boundary, there is no leeway to argue that the boundary is in any other position or that the title includes any other land.
11.1 Roadways
There are two presumptions relating to the ownership of the soil of a roadway (where a road or path is a highway maintainable at the public expense, the surface vests in the highway authority: section 263 of the Highways Act 1980). The first is that the owner of land abutting on a road is also the owner of the adjoining section of the road up to the middle line (ad medium filum). The second is that where a conveyance or transfer of land abutting on a road is made by someone owning land on one side of it only, then if they can be proved or are presumed, to own also the road up to the middle line, this half of the roadway is included in the conveyance or transfer.
Both of these presumptions may readily be rebutted.
pwa wrote:I have seen Land Registry documents clearly showing highway (road, footway and grass verge) as a package of land owned by a Highways Authority.
The fact that most roads are not publicly owned does not preclude some roads from public ownership.
the surface vests in the highway authority: section 263 of the Highways Act 1980).
So we may own the soil but the surface vests in the highway authority. If the kids are digging tunnels I may have just cause to claim they are infringing on my ownership. If they are playing football on the surface it is not infringing on my ownership, unlike for a footpath across somebody's property.
About the only time I could benefit from this ownership is if I saw council workers find a gold hoard while digging up "my" road.
I will try again. What a layman may have expressed as
In this scenario we are using public land, so we are the landowners as much as anybody else. He then tries to use that to justify using land which is clearly owned by somebody else.
should more correctly have been expressed as
In this scenario we are using land where the surface rights have been vested to a public body for public use. He is trying to use that to justify using land where the land including its surface rights are in the sole ownership of the private landowner.
Look at this the other way round. Just because somebody owns land, that doesn't mean they may do as they like, the obvious thing here being that they may not legally obstruct a right of way.
The various councils in the Tees valley area provide decent free maps of the cycling routes in the areas. Check out their websites for details but a simple request usually results in some in the post.
As someone else has mentioned The Hub on Stockton high street is a great resource and can supply the maps, and offer advice and guided rides. If you're further west, then talk to Bikestop in Darlington who are also brilliant.
mjr wrote: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.
That's not my interpretation. The piece linked to, whilst appearing on a CUK page, seems to be a personal opinion piece. It links in turn to a CUK position statement that takes it for granted that cycling on footpaths is not currently permitted, whilst arguing why the law should be changed (but not ignored or discounted).
I feel that interpretation is incorrect because:
1. Nothing on the page says it is a personal opinion piece. It appears to be an article in the campaigns guide, on the main website of CUK, written by the then policy coordinator of CUK.
2. The linked-to CUK position statement only takes it for granted that cycling on footpaths is not explicitly permitted ("no legal right") and argues that the law should be changed to permit it explicitly within some limits. It doesn't seem to say it's currently forbidden. It even clearly states "Cycling UK believes that it is acceptable for cyclists to use footpaths, provided [...]". This seems consistent with the summary article.
So keep on rolling! Just don't be silly or nasty about it.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
), shouted at to get on the cycle path when on the road (where there was no cycle path) and shouted at to ring my bell when they'd ignored me ringing it three times on approach already... but I've never yet been shouted at for cycling on a signed footpath - although there aren't many I use often. As long as you don't buzz walkers or kick dogs, I suspect there aren't many rural footpaths where it'll be a problem. It's definitely not a fast way to get around, though!
