Dartmoor Cycling ban

[Tangled Metal]

Not on dartmoor but elsewhere. I've seen MTBers on bridleways, perfectly legally, but the trouble is those bridleways become footpaths at each end. Do mtbers walk those sections?

[roubaixtuesday]

Not on dartmoor but elsewhere. I've seen MTBers on bridleways, perfectly legally, but the trouble is those bridleways become footpaths at each end. Do mtbers walk those sections?

As I understand it, it's not illegal to cycle on a footpath, but there is no prohibition on the landowner applying a ban.

It is illegal for a landowner to ban cycling on bridleways.

So unless the landowner has imposed a ban, there's nothing wrong with what MTBers are doing in your situation.

Could be wrong.

[Jdsk]

Not on dartmoor but elsewhere. I've seen MTBers on bridleways, perfectly legally, but the trouble is those bridleways become footpaths at each end. Do mtbers walk those sections?

As I understand it, it's not illegal to cycle on a footpath, but there is no prohibition on the landowner applying a ban.

It is illegal for a landowner to ban cycling on bridleways.

So unless the landowner has imposed a ban, there's nothing wrong with what MTBers are doing in your situation.

Could be wrong.

Yes, it's important to describe both the criminal and the civil law. And probably between the different countries of the UK.

From Cycling UK:

"Public Footpaths (England & Wales)":
https://www.cyclinguk.org/briefing/publ ... land-wales

"Is cycling on a footpath a trespass?":
https://www.cyclinguk.org/article/campa ... h-trespass

Jonathan

[Bmblbzzz]

Does anyone think that a clash of interests, between those on foot and those on two wheels might be key to understanding what is going on in the Dartmoor case?

There might be an element of that but I think it's part of the larger move to restrict public access to Dartmoor. There have been proposals by landowners to restrict the right of wild camping, which currently exists on much of Dartmoor National Park, and even the right to walk other than on RoWs.

[thirdcrank]

Does anyone think that a clash of interests, between those on foot and those on two wheels might be key to understanding what is going on in the Dartmoor case?

There might be an element of that but I think it's part of the larger move to restrict pubic access to Dartmoor. There have been proposals by landowners to restrict the right of wild camping, which currently exists on much of Dartmoor National Park, and even the right to walk other than on RoWs.

The bit I've highlighted must surely be it. Historically, rights of way were developed by usage, which in theory at least, meant the network developed to meet needs. However, it's not possible to gain the right to commit a criminal offence by usage. I believe that that's why nearly 200 years ago, when they started to build what are now called footways (but still called footpaths in the HA 1835) alongside roads, they made it a criminal offence to drive or ride on them. Otherwise, those pavements would simply have become part of a wider carriageway by usage. (When I posted along these lines before a RoW buff disagreed with me but I cannot remember on what grounds.) Now, if a "No cycling" sign is correctly displayed on what we'd call a ginnel around here, it should be to alert users to a *no cycling" byelaw.

Mass trespass actions etc may create a moral right, which might in turn lead to a change in byelaws etc but I fancy preventing the making of a byelaw in the first place is better in every way

[ChrisButch]

Does anyone think that a clash of interests, between those on foot and those on two wheels might be key to understanding what is going on in the Dartmoor case?

There might be an element of that but I think it's part of the larger move to restrict public access to Dartmoor. There have been proposals by landowners to restrict the right of wild camping, which currently exists on much of Dartmoor National Park, and even the right to walk other than on RoWs.

There are several issues which have got rather mixed up there. Firstly, wild camping: the National Park continues to champion its unique status as an area where wild camping is explicitly permitted, and the new draft bylaws continue to assert this, although they do quite properly make it clear that driving your car off the road and putting up a tent next to it is not wild camping, and is prohibited. Far from restricting it, the National Park is challenging in court the well-publicised current case of a landowner seeking to curtail the right. Similarly, there are no proposals to restrict the right to walk. Since virtually all the high moor outwith the military ranges is classified as Access Land under the CROW Act, there is anyway no legal basis on which it could be restricted.
The majority of the bylaw changes are targetted at the kind of behaviour which became widespread during the Covid lockdowns, when there was a sudden influx of large numbers of people with no awareness of acceptable behaviour in the countryside (fires, abandoned bbbqs, chronic littering, unrestrained dogs etc etc.)
All of which makes the cycling ban (which, to reiterate, isn't new - it was introduced over 20 years ago) even more of an anomaly. It would be consistent with the approach of the other bylaws to discourage cycling on the most vulnerable parts of the moor. It's the blanket ban, with no exceptions other than the statutory RoWs, which is illogical and inconsistent with the Parks' own stated objectives.
And incidentally, as somebody who has regularly both walked and cycled on the Moor for many years, I've never encountered any particular walker/cyclist friction beyond the routine low-key irritation you find anywhere.

[Tangled Metal]

Not on dartmoor but elsewhere. I've seen MTBers on bridleways, perfectly legally, but the trouble is those bridleways become footpaths at each end. Do mtbers walk those sections?

As I understand it, it's not illegal to cycle on a footpath, but there is no prohibition on the landowner applying a ban.

It is illegal for a landowner to ban cycling on bridleways.

So unless the landowner has imposed a ban, there's nothing wrong with what MTBers are doing in your situation.

Could be wrong.

Yes, it's important to describe both the criminal and the civil law. And probably between the different countries of the UK.

From Cycling UK:

"Public Footpaths (England & Wales)":
https://www.cyclinguk.org/briefing/publ ... land-wales

"Is cycling on a footpath a trespass?":
https://www.cyclinguk.org/article/campa ... h-trespass

Jonathan

Of course it's likely to be civil matter unless it prevents the legal use of the land by the landowner aiui in which case it could be criminal trespass or similar.

Not legal is the situation aiui which is not the same as not illegal. CUK use the correct not legal phrase in that link for E&W situation. In the case I described it was in England so that applies.

Of course the question then becomes whether your ethics allow you to do something that is not legal. I doubt I've ever met or heard of someone who can honestly say they never do anything that is not legal. I suspect of they honestly say that it's because they are ignorant of what they do that is not legal.

The other matter is whether you believe there's a semantic grey area between not legal and illegal. A sort of no man's land that you're OK to do whatever you like there.

Whatever the situation is it still comes down to you don't own the land so when cycling on it you only have a legal right to ride bridlepaths and BOATS (Whatever they're called now). Riding anything else is into that grey area or not legal area. Personal ethics determine what you decide to do.

One last point if asked to leave by the landowner or their agent and you don't then doesn't that also move you closer to illegal activity?

I'm sorry but I am not a fan of bandit cyclists who ride where they have no legal right. However that is hypocritical of me because I used to kayak rivers without a legal right to do so due to the positively medieval riparian rights system. Mostly kayaker rivers with access agreements keeping within the terms of those agreements, just the odd bandit run so accept the hypocrisy charge.

[Zulu Eleven]

This issue of illegality the exact point

On the Dartmoor Commons - ie within the National Park - cycling on a footpath (and anywhere else) is not just a regular civil trespass, it is a criminal act subject to prosecution in the magistrates court and a fine if found guilty. (Though, Rather paradoxically, after doing it for 20 years without challenge it still creates a right of way )

Outside the national park, it isn’t an offence. I’d argue that was, in itself, absurd, given what National Parks were created for.

That’s been the case since the late nineties - see Cherry Allen’s recent article on that here: https://www.cyclinguk.org/blog/dartmoor ... bound-1998

The current proposals extend that Byelaw beyond the current limits (ie. land within the national park subject to rights of common) to also include (ie. criminalise) cycle use on CROW access land.

There are weird anomalies in this. There is no right under the DCA to use, for example, a horse drawn carriage (or indeed a dog sled), but anyone using one will not be in breach of any byelaws. Similarly, although there is no right to ride either a cycle OR a horse on the CROW access land, within the NP, only one of the two will be a criminal offence.

[Zulu Eleven]

Taking on the role of Devil's Advocate for a moment, and trying to imagine what might make someone of goodwill want a ban on cycling on any path in an area of common, it occurs to me that there is a path that I walk on a lot, a Public Footpath, that is great for walking with our dog off the lead, and on which I have only once met an ill-advised group of MTB riders who had thought it might be a good route to cycle. But it is too narrow, too confined, to allow bikes and pedestrians to pass without the pedestrians having to step to one side. On a single isolated occasion that is no big deal, but if that path ever became popular with MTBers it would become less enjoyable to walkers and I for one would stop wanting to use it. On the one occasion I mentioned, the MTBers came in a long string and over the course of about a minute and a half, with the first few telling me there were more following. I had grabbed the dog by the collar and was pressed into the undergrowth at the side on a particularly narrow section. This is the path, but the section where I was passed was a narrower channel.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.48724 ... 312!8i6656
Does anyone think that a clash of interests, between those on foot and those on two wheels might be key to understanding what is going on in the Dartmoor case?

In the example I give the clash has not recurred, and I suspect the reason is that the path is unpleasant to cycle due to its narrowness and the need to duck a lot. In a way it is self-regulating, discouraging use by those who require a bit more elbow room by not providing it. Maybe people are trying it once on a bike, thinking it might be okay, but finding it hard work and not bothering with it again, except on foot. But this is an area known to locals but not to tourists, so that learning and self-regulation can happen. Perhaps the fear might be that in a tourist magnet like Dartmoor there might constantly be people, on bikes, who are new to the area and have not built up a mental map of paths to use and paths not to use.

My own encounter with that group of MTBers that day was a trivial affair and hardly worth a mention in itself, as it was a one-off. But it came to mind when thinking about Dartmoor.

It’s a great example of the type of discussion that needs to take place here, because IMO it does show why a blanket reclassification of all public footpaths is not a tenable position (and you may note is very firmly not CUK’s position)… fact is that many public footpaths in E&W are unsuitable for shared use (and it’s worth remembering that many public footpaths are in urban areas). I’d also add that, in Scotland, they started from a different point, where they didn’t have this history of large quantities of recorded urban public footpaths around which to build any new legislation).

At the same time, I’ve seen plenty of Bridleways that are just as narrow and vegetated as the path in that photo… so there’s swings and roundabouts here

Regardless however, this is clearly less relevant in an area of open hearh and moorland, where horses already have an unrestricted right of access. Similarly the arguments regards cycle (& horse) use on CROW access land (by definition mountain, moor, heath and down) are very different to public footpaths, and while restrictions in *some* areas in order to allay the risk of nuisance/conflict are undoubtedly justified, the idea of a general restriction covering tens of thousands of acres, including hundreds of miles of well surfaced land-rover tracks and mineral waggonways, cannot be justified as a reasonable application of byelaws (and If the proposal at Dartmoor was a Byelaw focusing on nuisance o4 harm, or limited to sensitive areas, I don’t believe there would be an issue).

For example the track in this photo: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.52702 ... 704!8i4352

As for the potential fear of a sudden influx. Well, that’s what good management is about isn’t it - you utilise promoted and waymarked routes to manage users and encourage them to enjoy the park by using robust routes, allied with education and interpretation of local history and heritage and embedding knowledge and respect. That’s why the Sandford principle focuses on only favouring one of the two dual priorities when irreconcilable conflicts, that cannot be mitigated through good management, have been identified.

[Bmblbzzz]

Just looking at that track in Zulu Eleven's link from a different angle:
https://goo.gl/maps/ev7L2Jd3Gti8rd1X6

Someone's dropped a giant Toblerone!

[Jon in Sweden]

Having skimmed the thread, I'm so, so glad to be out of Devon.

We moved down from Scotland in July 2018, and the attitudes towards public access shocked us. Private property signs everywhere, access limited and disconnected, any area of interest had access fees and car parking charges. It made affordable, consistent access to the countryside difficult or extremely repetitive.

I did 100km of gravel riding today (not my first choice as I'm a roadie, but it's getting colder and I wanted to test the studded tyres out). I think I saw two cars, except for the 10km of tarmac roads I did to link up the gravel. And then I think I only saw another 7-8 vehicles. No private property signs, no charges, no other people. Just miles and miles and miles of uninterrupted gravel riding.

There is such a large interest from a great many responsible and caring individuals who want to practice responsible countryside access in the UK. Instead, they're hamstrung by archaic, almost feudal land ownership and access laws and a minority of the public that cause issues with littering, damage and uncontrolled dogs. It's very frustrating.

[pwa]

Having skimmed the thread, I'm so, so glad to be out of Devon.

We moved down from Scotland in July 2018, and the attitudes towards public access shocked us. Private property signs everywhere, access limited and disconnected, any area of interest had access fees and car parking charges. It made affordable, consistent access to the countryside difficult or extremely repetitive.

I did 100km of gravel riding today (not my first choice as I'm a roadie, but it's getting colder and I wanted to test the studded tyres out). I think I saw two cars, except for the 10km of tarmac roads I did to link up the gravel. And then I think I only saw another 7-8 vehicles. No private property signs, no charges, no other people. Just miles and miles and miles of uninterrupted gravel riding.

There is such a large interest from a great many responsible and caring individuals who want to practice responsible countryside access in the UK. Instead, they're hamstrung by archaic, almost feudal land ownership and access laws and a minority of the public that cause issues with littering, damage and uncontrolled dogs. It's very frustrating.

I walk my dog off the lead in forestry It is the best place for her to be off the lead because there are (usually) no sheep around, very few people, and no traffic. But very occasionally, much less than once per walk, we will meet a cyclist out enjoying the same remote tracks and we gather up our dog. She is harmless, but being a whippet she loves to play chase games and wouldn't understand a cyclist isn't playing too, so getting fingers under her collar is essential. The cyclists we meet are (so far) always patient and willing to slow down while we do what we have to, and we always say thanks for their consideration.

In England and Wales there are large estates of forestry run by the bodies that took over from the Forestry Commission (Natural Resources Wales, here) and they are generally open to the public for walking, cycling and horse riding. Around here it is possible to find gravel circuits of 15 miles or so. Beyond that distance you would be having to do the odd ten miles on road to link them. The problem is, some areas have lots of this forestry and some areas don't.

Here is a brief video of some gravel cyclists in an area I use for dog walking. Some of the track they use is for every sort of user, but there is also a "cyclists only" track in the clip. In practice we rarely meet any cyclists up there, so anyone going there would pretty much have the place to themselves most of the time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rSWRjIXGtE
If we were up there with the whippet we would need those boys to slow down when we met, to give us a chance to make things safe. If they tried to outrun the whippet they would not succeed

Anther from the same area:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjjdCVW5QYg
Plenty of fun to be had, and when you meet another user of the facility who is doing something different, whether it be dog walking, horse riding or whatever, you just apply the brakes, wait a bit, and pass safely. That works very well, surpisingly often. I haven't had a conflict situation up there, and I must have done hundreds of miles of walking with the dog there. I suspect that those slightly remote places attract those of us who like being away from normal life for an hour or two, and we feel some connection to others who we meet there even if they are doing something we aren't.

[Cugel]

I walk my dog off the lead in forestry It is the best place for her to be off the lead because there are (usually) no sheep around, very few people, and no traffic. But very occasionally, much less than once per walk, we will meet a cyclist out enjoying the same remote tracks and we gather up our dog. She is harmless, but being a whippet she loves to play chase games and wouldn't understand a cyclist isn't playing too, so getting fingers under her collar is essential. The cyclists we meet are (so far) always patient and willing to slow down while we do what we have to, and we always say thanks for their consideration.

In England and Wales there are large estates of forestry run by the bodies that took over from the Forestry Commission (Natural Resources Wales, here) and they are generally open to the public for walking, cycling and horse riding. Around here it is possible to find gravel circuits of 15 miles or so. Beyond that distance you would be having to do the odd ten miles on road to link them. The problem is, some areas have lots of this forestry and some areas don't.

One may have a similar experience in Fforest Brechfa, in the southern end of west mid-Wales. However, the forest tracks are more numerous so one could so a 100km ride, probably, although this would involve visiting the same area of the fforest but along higher and lower contour lines.

We have a daily dog walk in one part of Fforest Brechfa or another and on nine out of ten days see nobody else at all. We only see a cyclist about once every two months, despite the fact that there are two very good dedicated MTB trails (a black & a red) as well as the extensive logging tracks. Dogs can be off the lead - although they are trained not to chase anything other than a ball or a stick, definitely nothing living, even cyclists.

But this is down to Fforest Brechfa being well off any beaten tracks, with the surrounding population levels very low indeed. There are also numerous similar facilities a lot closer to high population centres such as Swansea and Cardiff, where most seem to go. The lack of even an opportunity for contention between various fforest users is therefore extremely low.

West Wales also has a fairly open attitude to access as well, although farmers are likely to check who it might be should you wander in their field - but won't usually get aggressive or otherwise parky. In fact, once they see you're harmless (dog on a lead, etc.) they'll often chat for ages!

**********
Devon and other highly-visited areas of British "countryside" seem far more commercialised and far less welcoming to those wanting to just roam. Presumably the tolerance for roaming visitors goes down as the numbers increase, which means that the proportion of self-centred little skinbags inclined to damage and pollute will also increase. The latter are the visitors that the locals tend to remember .... and react to.

Cugel

[ChrisButch]

It's rather a stretch to describe Dartmoor as 'commercialised'. Coastal Devon, certainly: but Dartmoor (and even more so, Exmoor) are, mercifully, largely free of the dreaded 'visitor attractions' of mass tourism. Ice-cream vans in some of the larger car parks are about as commercial as it gets. It's far less commercialised than, for instance, the Lake District.
Historically, Dartmoor has been ruthlessly exploited for mineral extraction, water, forestry, imprisonment, military exercises and more. Compared with the excesses of the past, the status quo is relatively benign.

[simonineaston]

Today the Court has found in favour of the land-owner...

Right to wild camp in England lost in Dartmoor court case