Public Footpaths - cycling?

[Vorpal]

A few insults have been removed. Please argue nicely. Thanks.

[rareposter]

Imagine for one moment that you have allocated some private land for public use (as in the example I gave) but you want people to stay off some areas to allow wild flora to develop. And if they don't do as you ask, you just don't get the bluebells or whatever because you don't have the resources to police it. That, by the way, is why many landowners don't appear to prevent unauthorised access, because they are too busy doing other things. Not because they agree to access.

That's what fences are there for. There's a trail local to me in the Peak District which was becoming massively eroded - more because of the geography than the usage. But there was nowhere else realistic for people to walk. In spite of the Right To Roam legislation, 99.9% of people will stick to the trails that are there. So in the end a parallel track was built and the old one, which was considerably sunken and muddy, was walled off at each end. It's now a lovely little wildflower filled "ditch" and everyone uses the much more appropriate and nicely graded built trail a few metres off to the side. Sometimes you have to force change.

[pwa]

Imagine for one moment that you have allocated some private land for public use (as in the example I gave) but you want people to stay off some areas to allow wild flora to develop. And if they don't do as you ask, you just don't get the bluebells or whatever because you don't have the resources to police it. That, by the way, is why many landowners don't appear to prevent unauthorised access, because they are too busy doing other things. Not because they agree to access.

That's what fences are there for. There's a trail local to me in the Peak District which was becoming massively eroded - more because of the geography than the usage. But there was nowhere else realistic for people to walk. In spite of the Right To Roam legislation, 99.9% of people will stick to the trails that are there. So in the end a parallel track was built and the old one, which was considerably sunken and muddy, was walled off at each end. It's now a lovely little wildflower filled "ditch" and everyone uses the much more appropriate and nicely graded built trail a few metres off to the side. Sometimes you have to force change.

Sounds good. Yes, we fenced the bluebell areas off with the sort of fence that is just an indication of a wish to keep people off, no barb wire or anything like that. But in spite of all the MTB / BMX trail we had created through the woodland the small fenced patches were seen by someone as an offence to their wish to go wherever they like and the wire was cut. Again and again. Tyre marks all over the bluebell planted patches. We had small signs telling people what the fenced off patches were for, but that made no difference. So the woodland floor was rendered evenly bare of plants all over.

Our approach as "the landowner" there was to greatly increase permissive access and allow it to become liable to a claim as PROW or whatever in the fullness of time, but to try to keep people from heavy use of some areas so that people would have some native vegetation and wildlife to see as they passed through. But that is impossible to manage if members of the public don't want to co-operate. You can't really police it. And even if you could, would you want to? Constant confrontation.

[Vorpal]

When someone does something like cut fence to ride through bluebells, chances are it is the same person, or small group of people, and should be dealt with as a criminal damage investigation, rather than civil trespass. Ideally, the local police would set up a squirrel camera, and deal with it in an effective manner (yes, I know ). And some people who used to ride through bluebells would have the opportunity to plant some under community service.

[pwa]

When someone does something like cut fence to ride through bluebells, chances are it is the same person, or small group of people, and should be dealt with as a criminal damage investigation, rather than civil trespass. Ideally, the local police would set up a squirrel camera, and deal with it in an effective manner (yes, I know ). And some people who used to ride through bluebells would have the opportunity to plant some under community service.

In an ideal world.... The police weren't even very interested when we had expensive equipment (strimmers, chainsaws, trailers.....) stolen, night after night, week after week. Getting them interested in saving a hundred quids worth of bluebells was not going to happen.

About the same time I was restoring this bridleway:
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5844639 ... 6?hl=en-GB
It hadn't been open for decades and the tenant of the house beside it was very angry when I turned up and said I wanted to let horses, MTBs and walkers in. One of her concerns was that they would wander all over her fields causing untold damage. I know, I know. People who take the trouble to get out into the countryside don't tend to be like that. But it took a long time to get her onside. Going to court was not an option. No funds for that. But we talked her round and she was happy enough at the end. Just another human being with worries and frailties. Lots of landowners and tenants are like that. They aren't all aristocrats with a snooty disregard of ordinary people.

Did anyone ever use the bridleway? I don't know. But at least they had a chance when we had put all the new gates in and cleared fallen trees etc.

[Zulu Eleven]

Imagine for one moment that you have allocated some private land for public use (as in the example I gave) but you want people to stay off some areas to allow wild flora to develop. And if they don't do as you ask, you just don't get the bluebells or whatever because you don't have the resources to police it. That, by the way, is why many landowners don't appear to prevent unauthorised access, because they are too busy doing other things. Not because they agree to access.

Imagine for a moment that what people do on my land is my business, not an issue for some petty little busybody (whomsoever they may be) who is not acting directly under my request to stick his nose into.

The 20 year "rule," by the way, has never been a rule. It is a guideline at most.

“Never been a rule” - do please stop embarrassing yourself, it’s been a rule of law since 1932.

Your approach seems to be to take what you can when you can and for as long as no-one can stop you. Whether you think it is yours to take or not.

No, my approach has been the law of the land since time immemorial.

[pwa]

Imagine for one moment that you have allocated some private land for public use (as in the example I gave) but you want people to stay off some areas to allow wild flora to develop. And if they don't do as you ask, you just don't get the bluebells or whatever because you don't have the resources to police it. That, by the way, is why many landowners don't appear to prevent unauthorised access, because they are too busy doing other things. Not because they agree to access.

Imagine for a moment that what people do on my land is my business, not an issue for some petty little busybody (whomsoever they may be) who is not acting directly under my request to stick his nose into.

The 20 year "rule," by the way, has never been a rule. It is a guideline at most.

“Never been a rule” - do please stop embarrassing yourself, it’s been a rule of law since 1932.

3FA668CB-5EEF-4F92-A45C-CB56975F7A8A.jpeg

Your approach seems to be to take what you can when you can and for as long as no-one can stop you. Whether you think it is yours to take or not.

No, my approach has been the law of the land since time immemorial.

Read the last few lines starting with "unless", which in practice has tripped up people trying to use that clause over the years. All it takes is someone to take a pic of a "Private" sign on the route and keep that pic as insurance against a future claim. The twenty year thing is often a starting point for a claim. It is never the end of it, unless it is not disputed.

I was employed to manage that bit of land with increased public access but also increased native flora. Getting people to give the newly planted flora a chance proved impossible.

And a friendlier tone would not cost anything. I don't bear you any ill feeling.

[philvantwo]

Think about Mick F's safety! We don't want him getting knocked over do we?

[Mick F]

Two Google Streetview pictures ..................

Difficult to make out under the trees, but it's there regarding unauthorised vehicles etc.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.52857 ... 312!8i6656

The other end.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.51599 ... 312!8i6656
........ but it's an old view, though now it says No Cycling and No Horses and with a Public Footpath fingerpost.

Another path wot me and Doggie use isn't on Streetview, but the fingerpost and the post say the same things.
Red circle with a diagonal line through. No Horses and No Cycling.



As I've said, all this is pointless.
If people use Public Footpaths for bicycles or horses ................ why do we have Public Footpaths at all?
Make 'em all Bridle Ways and be done with it.

[pwa]

Two Google Streetview pictures ..................

Difficult to make out under the trees, but it's there regarding unauthorised vehicles etc.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.52857 ... 312!8i6656

The other end.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.51599 ... 312!8i6656
........ but it's an old view, though now it says No Cycling and No Horses and with a Public Footpath fingerpost.

Another path wot me and Doggie use isn't on Streetview, but the fingerpost and the post say the same things.
Red circle with a diagonal line through. No Horses and No Cycling.



As I've said, all this is pointless.
If people use Public Footpaths for bicycles or horses ................ why do we have Public Footpaths at all?
Make 'em all Bridle Ways and be done with it.

If the landowner puts up signage telling people not to cycle or ride horses, people cycling and riding horses are in the wrong. Given that it is only Public Footpath. How can that be enforced? Dunno!

[rareposter]

If the landowner puts up signage telling people not to cycle or ride horses, people cycling and riding horses are in the wrong. Given that it is only Public Footpath. How can that be enforced? Dunno!

Put up enough barriers that it's either extremely difficult or impossible to get a bike in there. Stiles, high gates, deer fencing...
The only issue then is that it also becomes very difficult to get anything else in there like dogs (especially big ones), anyone with any sort of disability, elderly people, equipment (eg machinery for farming, tree-cutting etc), feed for animals, any sort of farm animals...

Having a main, locked, gate to allow restricted vehicle access under control of the keyholder only and providing a stile is one option and (generally) you're unlikely to be in breach of disability regulations but it's still the cost of maintaining the gate, the locks, the stile... It may be easier, assuming there's no real harm being done, to just turn a blind eye.

[Bmblbzzz]

If people use Public Footpaths for bicycles or horses ................ why do we have Public Footpaths at all?
Make 'em all Bridle Ways and be done with it.

CUK had a (rather small) campaign along those lines a few years ago; that, essentially, all footpaths and most restricted byways should become bridleways.

[Mick F]

Walking the doggie yesterday and came out of the river path to cross the main road at Gunnislake Bridge.
Looking back to the track, and took this photo.

There are four or five houses along the track and they need access, but no-one else does, hence this sign.

What does it "legally" mean?
Can cyclists use it legally ............. or morally?
Would YOU cycle along that path?

[rareposter]

Walking the doggie yesterday and came out of the river path to cross the main road at Gunnislake Bridge.
Looking back to the track, and took this photo.

There are four or five houses along the track and they need access, but no-one else does, hence this sign.

What does it "legally" mean?
Can cyclists use it legally ............. or morally?
Would YOU cycle along that path?

Well the sign is an attempt to tell people that it's an access road, not a through road. However there is no definition of "authorised" or "unauthorised". So pretty much anyone driving up there could claim authorisation. Emergency services (obviously...). Deliveries. Services like utilities, plumber etc. Friends / visitors.

I mean, there's no-one sitting there with a clipboard ticking people off against an "authorised" list so if it's open to cars then, short of an official bylaw active for that road to prevent it, it's by default open to horses and bikes too.

As to the question of whether I would cycle along it, you can probably guess my answer!

[Mick F]

As I said, there are houses along there, and if we owned one, I'd be driving and cycling to it, but I'd be authorised by dint of living there.

If you have no business driving a vehicle, you are breaking the rules. Ditto cycling.