Cycling on footpaths in Scotland - legal position

[halfmanhalfpint]

To avoid a dangerous road on the way the local railway station (North Berwick) I regularly cycle (slowly) through the local park. There is still a very old no cycling sign at one of the entrances. Also, new no cycling signs have recently appeared on a path leading to one of the entrances .
I was under the impression that since 2003 you can cycle on any (foot) path due to the country side access legislation. You are not allowed to cycle on a pavement.
A pavement is different from a footpath, as it is associated with a road.

There seems to be two sets of contradictory legislation. Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 bans cycling on all footpaths and pavements (footways). Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 allows cycling on footpaths.
Could anyone who knows about Scots Law clarify this?

Maybe I should in touch with East Lothian Council and ask them why the new signs have gone up?
Picture shows it isn't a pavement - https://www.dropbox.com/sc/lnljo0d1nsu3it1/OkDEM7XSSf

Regards,
NB Cyclist

[Mark1978]

It's confusing as people usually refer to footways as footpaths, when of course they aren't the same thing.

[ChrisButch]

As I understand it, the subdivision of Public Rights of Way in England and Wales into Public Footpath, Public Bridleway, Restricted Byway etc has never existed in Scotland - there has been the one category only, a Right of Way, and this has always been open to those on foot, horse or bike. Outside the areas of open access defined by the 2003 Act, I believe this remains the case. However, it's possible that your Park route was never a Pubic Right of Way in the first place.

[Adam S]

It's confusing as people usually refer to footways as footpaths, when of course they aren't the same thing.

Probably stemming from the fact that they are synonyms and used as such in both common speech and legislation. It's rather silly for modern highway terminology to use two synonyms to differentiate between a pavement/sidewalk and a public footpath (either of those terms would be much less ambiguous).

[thirdcrank]

... Maybe I should in touch with East Lothian Council and ask them why the new signs have gone up?
...

Unless somebody posts who knows the position in Scotland that must be your best bet. Just to add to the stuff about England which has already been posted, cycling bans etc in municipal parks there are made under local byelaws.

[iviehoff]

Precisely because OS maps of Scotland do not divulge whether a path it shows is a right of way, many people are unaware of the existence of rights of way in Scotland. And they do not divulge it because unlike in England and Wales there is no definitive map of rights of way. And indeed you cannot rely that those paths on the maps are rights of way, they merely record paths that exist. The Scottish Rights of Way & Access Society is a good source of information on these issues, as in the absense of a definitive map of rights of way they carry out the function of recording them. http://www.scotways.com/ In wild land it doesn't seem to matter very much any more to know whether the path is a right of way, as there is general access to much land. It seems harder to know whether land owners can exclude you from cycling on their estate roads over wild land. But it seems likely that most paths in municipal parks are no more a right of way than paths inside a zoo or the path up my front garden.

[gaz]

.

[irc]

This Scottish Parliament paper seems to think it is legal to cycle on most footpaths.

the 2003 Act does allow cycling on any path where access has not been restricted by a Traffic Regulation Order or through other legal means. In practice, this allows cyclists to use most paths in urban parks and rural areas.

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/Resea ... _12-24.pdf


I believe, though I can't point to the law, that apart from footways adjacent to roads (unless shared use) cycling is legal on any path. Unless a post 2003 byelaw or Traffic Order prohibits it.

I managed to get Scottish Water to remove pre 2003 "No Cycling" Signs by quoting the 2003 Act. Cycling was prohibited by pre 2003 bylaws. I argued that the 2003 Act superceded these laws. It was like pulling teeth though. Two letters ignored, no help from the council access officer, and only removed after I went to my MSP.

[Ellieb]

I'm pretty sure that if there is a local byelaw then cycling can be prohibited. You'd need to see if such a law exists for the part you want to ride through

[irc]

More stuff about cycling from Transport Scotland. Again, my reading of it is that cycling is legal unless banned under other laws like for footways (not footpaths). Or banned under a TRO.

Orders made under Section 203 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 to restrict or exclude vehicles from a road can exempt cyclists. If cyclists’ access is being restricted, then in common with any other vehicle restrictions, it may be desirable to promote a TRO so that it is an offence to contravene the restriction.

Where cyclists are permitted entry to a vehicle restricted or pedestrian only area, they must be given a clear legal right to do so by amendment of the relevant Pedestrianisation Order (Section 205 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997) or TRO (Section 1 or 6 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984).

A.3.3 Footway and Footpath Redetermination for Cycle Use

Footways and footpaths that are not subject to specific legislation determining their use are subject to the general access rights of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act (2003).

http://www.transportscotland.gov.uk/str ... .htm#a.3.3


For the OP my guess is the council can ban cycling on a path through the park by getting a TRO. Time to ask the council what power, if any, there is to back up the signs?

[Ron]

The Outdoor Access Officer at East lothian Council should be able to explain and inform you of your rights.

http://www.eastlothian.gov.uk/site/scri ... geNumber=1

[halfmanhalfpint]

Thanks for all your replies.
I emailed the Access Officer. The new no cycling signs were not put up by the Council.
Must have been a busybody neighbour! They are going to have the signs removed.
They don't have a problem with cycling in the local park (Lodge Grounds).

[sirmy]

It's confusing as people usually refer to footways as footpaths, when of course they aren't the same thing.

Probably stemming from the fact that they are synonyms and used as such in both common speech and legislation. It's rather silly for modern highway terminology to use two synonyms to differentiate between a pavement/sidewalk and a public footpath (either of those terms would be much less ambiguous).

They are synonyms only as donkey is a synonym for horse. Actually the term "footway" appears extensively in legislation to identify a section of highway next to a road reserved for pedestrians, try doing a keyword search for it through the 1980 Highways Act. A Public Footpath refers only to this paths shown on definitive map and no others. These distinctions have existed for many years, although the 1831 Highways Act refers to a causeway rather than a footway, and are important for distinguishing what use can be exercised as of right

[Adam S]

It's confusing as people usually refer to footways as footpaths, when of course they aren't the same thing.

Probably stemming from the fact that they are synonyms and used as such in both common speech and legislation. It's rather silly for modern highway terminology to use two synonyms to differentiate between a pavement/sidewalk and a public footpath (either of those terms would be much less ambiguous).

They are synonyms only as donkey is a synonym for horse. Actually the term "footway" appears extensively in legislation to identify a section of highway next to a road reserved for pedestrians, try doing a keyword search for it through the 1980 Highways Act. A Public Footpath refers only to this paths shown on definitive map and no others. These distinctions have existed for many years, although the 1831 Highways Act refers to a causeway rather than a footway, and are important for distinguishing what use can be exercised as of right

"Public Footpath" is unambiguous, "footpath" is not. "Footpath" is used in a literal sense in common speech to refer to a path for those on foot, "footway" can be used to mean the same thing - a way for those on foot. It is modern highway terminology that draws the distinction. My point was that it would be more sensible to use the terms "Public footpath" for the status of the right of way, and "pavement" or "sidewalk" or any other unambiguous language to refer to the pedestrian part of the road.

I agree that "footway" is used in modern legislation but the one I had in mind which used the word "footpath" was the law prohibiting pavement cycling: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Wil ... section/72

If any person shall wilfully ride upon any footpath or causeway by the side of any road made or set apart for the use or accommodation of foot passengers....

[Mark1978]

Most people will have no idea what 'footway' means and how it differs from 'footpath'. I certainly didn't until I started reading up on this sort of thing.