Which in part is why a test case is very unlikely to happen as matters stand. If my understanding of the law is correct, any legal action would have to be initiated by the landowner against the cyclists or others 'trespassing' on their land. I don't think there is a legal avenue available to cyclists or others to take the landowner to court. That is why in the case of Bolton Abbey CUK is focussing on the conditional tax exemption, and even then it is not in a position to go to court itself over the issue - all it can do is ask HMRC to review the matter. Similarly I think private individuals may not be able to enforce access to footpaths and bridleways, and instead are reliant on councils and their rights of way officers to enforce access.thirdcrank wrote: ↑15 May 2021, 12:38pm Of course, a test case might well clarify that cyclists' rights of way were wider than is sometimes assumed.
Given that there is some doubt about whether landowners are legally entitled to prohibit cyclists using footpaths, they will want to avoid going to court to settle the matter. Instead they will seek to maintain the status quo, and act as though they are entitled to prohibit cyclists. To call their bluff it will be necessary to raise the stakes in a way that compels one of them to take a group of cyclists to court. Frequent rides (club runs?) by a group of cyclists across the Duke of Devonshire's landrover tracks (outside the shooting season) might be the answer, giving him the choice of backing down and accepting what would become established access, or taking the group to court and running the risk not only of losing, but also of a pyrrhic victory even if he won, because the publicity of the case could lead to a change in the law granting access.
CUK is probably the only body that is in a position to organise and implement such a campaign. If it decided to do it, I would contribute towards any fund to cover the costs of fighting the case in and out of court.