Road/Footpath

[Proofer]

Have just seen a Footpath sign go up on a local dirt road, the road has some houses on it and is wide enough for a single car, great for cycling on (watch out for some major pot holes, the house residents fill them in when they get really bad in the winter), the question is am I breaking the law cycling on it as the Council have decided it's a footpath.

It's a really good way through to local lanes, another police sign has appeared at the other end warning that motor vehicles using it for anything other than access to the houses will be fined £1000 and could be seized.

[Cyril Haearn]

It could be a RUPP, road used as public path
If that term is still valid

[AndyK]

If you'd like to tell us exactly where it is, some research might be possible. It depends on how it's recorded on the council's Definitive Map.

[AndyK]

It could be a RUPP, road used as public path
If that term is still valid

Nope. RUPPs ceased to exist in 2006. Any remaining RUPPS were reclassified as Restricted Byways.

[gaz]

... the question is am I breaking the law cycling on it as the Council have decided it's a footpath.

There is neither a law prohibiting nor permiting the use of a cycle on a public footpath.

The landowner could consider it to be tresspassing.

[gaz]

Nope. RUPPs ceased to exist in 2006. Any remaining RUPPS were reclassified as Restricted Byways.

Indeed they were: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.36661 ... 312!8i6656

[drossall]

And to be clear is this a Public Footpath sign, or something a bit different?

[jgurney]

The footpath sign strongly suggests that the road is private but a right of way along it on foot exists. That would mean that the public had no right to go there on bicycles. However doing so is not a crime, although it might amount to a civil trespass. In the event that the owner or their agent told you not to cycle there, it would be wiser to cooperate. If you ride there without any hindrance and without causing any damage, you are unlikely to land up in trouble.

It might be worth looking into whether a local alliance of cyclists and horse riders could campaign for the footpath to be converted to a bridleway to secure their lawful use of it.

[RickH]

There are a lot of badly assigned rights of way around.

There is a tarmac road not far from us that is marked on OS maps as a footpath which I, & others, have used as a cycle route for many years (i was introduced to it in 1981/82). I often see horses using it too. I've never had my presence there questioned.

There is also a section of bridleway near us with a flight of over 100 steep steps which, understandably I think, I have never felt the urge to ride either up or down.

[pwa]

The footpath sign strongly suggests that the road is private but a right of way along it on foot exists. That would mean that the public had no right to go there on bicycles. However doing so is not a crime, although it might amount to a civil trespass. In the event that the owner or their agent told you not to cycle there, it would be wiser to cooperate. If you ride there without any hindrance and without causing any damage, you are unlikely to land up in trouble.

It might be worth looking into whether a local alliance of cyclists and horse riders could campaign for the footpath to be converted to a bridleway to secure their lawful use of it.

That's about it. The Footpath sign indicates that your only right, without the permission of the landowner, is for walking, but you can continue cycling until and unless somebody tells you not to. If the landowner is not bothered by your cycling you are okay.

[Graham]

There are a lot of badly assigned rights of way around.

A neighbour has developed a keen interest claiming "Rights of Way" before some not-too-distant deadline.

Having discussed some of the RoWs she is working on and the complex research she is undertaking, I deduce that the whole RoW system is a complete shambles.
- Complex & verging on incomprehensible, legally & procedurally.
- The authorities who are supposed to "run the show" are often unwilling and/or unable to provide (correct) information or follow through the procedures correctly.

[pwa]

There are a lot of badly assigned rights of way around.

A neighbour has developed a keen interest claiming "Rights of Way" before some not-too-distant deadline.

Having discussed some of the RoWs she is working on and the complex research she is undertaking, I deduce that the whole RoW system is a complete shambles.
- Complex & verging on incomprehensible, legally & procedurally.
- The authorities who are supposed to "run the show" are often unwilling and/or unable to provide (correct) information or follow through the procedures correctly.

It was a shambles right from the start. I have seen a Footpath that, in the middle of a moor, becomes a Bridleway where it crosses a boundary, presumably because two neighbouring authorities sent out two different surveyors who came to different conclusions about the traditional established use of the same path. They didn't think of talking to each other and coming to an agreed decision about the path.

[Mick F]

........... RUPPs ceased to exist in 2006. Any remaining RUPPS were reclassified as Restricted Byways.

Saw a sign for a Restricted Byway only this morning.

This seems a good site for basic definitions.
http://naturenet.net/row/rowdefinitions.html

[Proofer]

Thanks for replies, think I will continue to use it, if someone objects I'll think again.

[Vorpal]

Thanks for replies, think I will continue to use it, if someone objects I'll think again.

It may be worth investigating what is the legal status, so hat if someone does say something you will know your standing.

The matter of signing a public footpath may just mean that a mapped/named route has been created, or someone requested a sign on an existing righ of way.