Can landowners restrict usage of public rights of way

I often ride the canal tow-path, access to which is through the local golf club via a tarmac road, through a car park, then on through the golf links via a 6 foot wide track also used by the clubs vehicles and is an undisputed public right of way. Recently the club has put up a sign warning of the golf balls flying past but also stating "No Cycling"! I fully understand that having paid a large sum of money to become a member and then having to wait for people to use the right of way can be annoying, but, can the club make cyclists dismount to use this right of way. I have been challenged, well, shouted at by one golfer "Oye! No cycling through here" which seems strange as they would have to wait a lot longer for me to pass if I was walking.To put things into perspective I always stop and wait if they are about to tee off, but usually they wave me through...

They cannot enforce club rules or act as law enforcement officers, but if the right of way is legally a footpath, cycling is not permitted on it anyway. Of course if the section is not a right of way and is privately owned, they can enforce. If it is a bridleway, cycling is permitted on it by the Bridleways Act of 1968.

 

There are also other permitted cycling routes like the canal tow paths you mention and greenways.

 

If you are right about it all being an undisputed right of way and not legally a footpath, you cannot be stopped from cycling

.

Edited August 13, 201411 yr by flecc

Hi Flecc, thanks for the info.. Just looking through the club minutes in which they discuss the bridleway.

Paddock to right of 17

C231/07 had requested that Development look at using the area to the right of 17 as a practice facility. It was felt that the cost in making a suitable area, the

fact that a bridleway passes through it and making easier access for people to trespass onto the course from the canal were cumulative factors that made

this an impractical solution.

So in this case I can argue that the club rules do not apply on the track and although I am happy do defer to the players when our paths cross, they cant make me get off and walk.

Thanks Flecc

but if the right of way is legally a footpath, cycling is not permitted on it anyway.

 

I thought that only applied to footpaths that run alongside roads.

Someone once told me that if a footpath has a style then its a footpath and you shouldn't be riding it..

You mention going through a car park to get to the disputed track.

 

The car park likely belongs to the golf club and if they want to stop you using the track, they might try to achieve that by stopping you going through the car park.

 

In theory, they could ban you from the car park, but even that is fraught with difficulties.

 

Trespass is a civil matter, so they would need to prove damages - you damaged the surface of the car park - to get any legal redress.

 

Practically, they might try to put up barriers, but designing barriers which stop a bike but also do not inconvenience the members will be difficult.

 

The best solution is they accept your responsible 'give way' attitude to cycling on the path.

 

But being golf club members, they might not see it that way.

I thought that only applied to footpaths that run alongside roads.

 

No, it is all designated public footpaths. That's why the 1968 Countryside Act had bicycles specifically included in the permissions, since when tricycle use permission for bridleways has also been added following a submission to the DfT from SUSTRANS.

 

Here's an extract on the position from the CTC website:

 

"There is no right to cycle on footpaths, even though many of them are perfectly suitable; whereas bridleways, which cyclists are allowed to use, may be much less usable. Creating a coherent, logical, off-road network for cyclists therefore requires a fundamental reform of RoW* law and political will."

 

*Rights of Way.

 

More facts:

 

Public footpaths are mostly rural rights of way specifically restricted to pedestrians and the right to walk along them is legally protected.

 

Footways (pavements) are not footpaths. The legal status of footways and footpaths differs: a footway runs alongside a carriageway (i.e. a road), whereas a footpath is located away from it (e.g. between buildings or through open countryside).

 

Cycling on a (non public) footpath normally constitutes only a trespass against the landowner. This is a civil and not a criminal matter, i.e. neither the police nor a PCSO can take enforcement action. Instead, an aggrieved landowner can either ask someone cycling on a footpath over their land to leave, or they can seek a court injunction and/or damages against them.

.

Edited August 13, 201411 yr by flecc

You mention going through a car park to get to the disputed track.

 

The car park likely belongs to the golf club and if they want to stop you using the track, they might try to achieve that by stopping you going through the car park.

 

In theory, they could ban you from the car park, but even that is fraught with difficulties.

 

Trespass is a civil matter, so they would need to prove damages - you damaged the surface of the car park - to get any legal redress.

 

Practically, they might try to put up barriers, but designing barriers which stop a bike but also do not inconvenience the members will be difficult.

 

The best solution is they accept your responsible 'give way' attitude to cycling on the path.

 

But being golf club members, they might not see it that way.

In this case the bridleway predates the golf club and the car park is built on the bridleway... So is it fair to assume that any rights of way are the same across the car park! I can see an argument in the future and would like to be prepared with facts.

I suggest you check the OS map and find out if it is a bridleway and where it goes to and from. Once a right of way always a right of way. Unless its route is moved by the council, which is a longish process needing consultation. It can't be just blocked by the landowner legally.

 

If it still is a bridleway you are within your rights to continue to use it and to tell the members so.

Someone once said a group of us, you cannot kayak down this section of the river. We ignored their advice.

 

I think it was day 3, we found a barbed wire strung across the river at neck height.

 

The fact was, we do have a right of passage.

 

Whatever the legal situation watch out for those flying balls.

One time during the winter the path was about 3 feet underwater so I went around it. Got a severe rollicking for riding on the fairway. Now I have my trusty bike cam I will remember to point it at any protagonists.

Since the club acknowledge it's a bridleway, they cannot stop you from cycling Phill. In fact legally you have the right to make golfers wait while you cycle through.

 

The 1968 Bridleways Act specifies only one instance where a cyclist has to give way, and that is to horse riders who have priority at all times.

.

No, it is all designated public footpaths. That's why the 1968 Countryside Act had bicycles specifically included in the permissions, since when tricycle use permission for bridleways has also been added following a submission to the DfT from SUSTRANS.

 

Here's an extract on the position from the CTC website:

 

"There is no right to cycle on footpaths, even though many of them are perfectly suitable; whereas bridleways, which cyclists are allowed to use, may be much less usable. Creating a coherent, logical, off-road network for cyclists therefore requires a fundamental reform of RoW* law and political will."

 

*Rights of Way.

 

More facts:

 

Public footpaths are mostly rural rights of way specifically restricted to pedestrians and the right to walk along them is legally protected.

 

Footways (pavements) are not footpaths. The legal status of footways and footpaths differs: a footway runs alongside a carriageway (i.e. a road), whereas a footpath is located away from it (e.g. between buildings or through open countryside).

 

Cycling on a (non public) footpath normally constitutes only a trespass against the landowner. This is a civil and not a criminal matter, i.e. neither the police nor a PCSO can take enforcement action. Instead, an aggrieved landowner can either ask someone cycling on a footpath over their land to leave, or they can seek a court injunction and/or damages against them.

.

 

This document has a lot of legal references, and says the opposite. How can we know which is correct?

 

http://ukcyclerules.com/2010/11/23/riding-on-footpaths-the-basics/

If you want to be absolutely certain as to the current status of a RoW, you need to ask your County Council footpaths officer to let you have sight of the Definitive Rights of Way maps for the relevant area.

 

Last time I did so, I was told they might not be up to date, but I was welcome to look!

It took a while to explain that what's on the definitive map is legally what's on the ground

This document has a lot of legal references, and says the opposite. How can we know which is correct?

 

http://ukcyclerules.com/2010/11/23/riding-on-footpaths-the-basics/

 

 

I can't see it does say the opposite, it's just incomplete, concentrating only on one aspect of the law which applies primarily to footways, which they wrongly refer to as footpaths. It avoids mention of public footpaths, on which cycling is generally not permitted. It does acknowledge that many footpaths are subject to local byelaws banning cycling. The footpaths it infers are not subject to law are the privately owned ones which I have acknowledged, but as I posted, they are subject to the civil law of trespass which they fail to mention. In other words, with it's errors and omissions it's clearly not a good source for guidance. In contrast, the CTC has always posted very responsibly with great care on cycling law, carefully avoiding any extension of the law by interpretation.

 

The problem for us is that we will often not know the status of any path so we should be wary until we ascertain the status as jackhandy says above.

.

Edited August 13, 201411 yr by flecc

I'll add two more things to the above to cover all bases.

 

First, there is a waiver for cyclists to ride on the footway (aka pavement but not footpath) when they are genuinely in fear of traffic, so long as they are riding responsibly, i.e. at a moderate speed and not frightening pedestrians. This waiver was established at the time of the law forbidding pavement cycling by the Home Secretary of the day, Paul Boateng, and has since been confirmed in a letter from the Home Office. I've posted details on these on numerous occasions.

 

Second and in the real world, ramblers, hikers etc jealously and zealously protect their rights on footpaths. A cyclist coming upon a group of them will often be confronted with their way blocked. Regardless of anyone's legal rights, I wish anyone luck if they choose to confront a number of these irate middle aged and elderly ramblers, many often female.

.

"Where can you not cycle?

 

If you cycle on a path which is by the side of a road and which is for pedestrians, you’ll commit this offence.

 

But the offence only applies to paths by the side of a road, and not to paths which are away from the road. So you won’t commit this offence if you ride along an alleyway away from the road, or on a path through a park. (R v Pratt [1867-68] LR 3 QB 64)"

I thought that was pretty clear!

As I posted, that only refers to one specific law, that of pavement cycling. Read again and you'll see that it says "the offence, and later "this offence. It nowhere says "an offence" since it refers to one specific court case and that law alone being tried.

 

Later it doesn't say, "you didn't commit this offence, it says "you won't commit this offence if - ", i.e. it's an example quoted during the case and only in connection with that one law.

 

As I constantly stress, with the law it's necessary to only read precisely what is said or written and not extrapolate from it. This was not a general ruling, it was specific. Of course as with e-bike law, it's all a bit academic, the chance of being prosecuted for riding on a countryside footpath is vanishingly small. However, many if not most footpaths away from roads cannot be legally cycled on, as the CTC rightly state. If that were not the case, they would not be campaigning for change for there would be no need.

 

Although running the gauntlet of ramblers is always possible as I posted earlier, not everyone is bothered by offroad cycling. My local nature reserve has a byelaw and a condition of use, both banning cycling. Despite that we who are involved with the running of that reserve are completely happy for responsible cyclists to use the paths and officers of the council whose byelaw that is do not enforce it. Many families cycle in there routinely and a few individuals commute across it to bypass the congested parallel road system to the north.

.

Edited August 13, 201411 yr by flecc

I'm now totally confused. If you can't be prosecuted for the offence of riding on a footpath, what offence are you committing?

Who says you can't be prosecuted for the offence of riding on a footpath? I haven't said that, I've only said it's unlikely to happen.

 

It's best to start by ignoring that site which I've shown is unreliable since they begin by not knowing the difference between a footway (aka pavement) and a footpath.

 

Then consider these two facts.

 

First, why would the CTC be campaigning for legal cycle use on footpaths (away from road) and footways (next to roads) if it already existed for the former?

 

Second, why would bicycle cycling permission be included in the 1968 Bridleways Act after representations from cycling groups if general countryside path cycling was already permitted? Note that act only specifies bicycles, while most UK bicycle law specifies "bicycles, tricycles and bicycles with four or more wheels". That again clearly indicates no access to all types of bicycle previously.

 

I think those two things are all we need to know, we don't need to delve into the laws.

 

And as I've posted, the CTC is the most reliable site for legal advice on cycling, there being clear evidence of how cautious they are in the legal advice they give. There will no doubt be many lawyers among their large membership, so with their cycling interests and professional expertise, I doubt they'd let any CTC error pass uncorrected.

 

P.S. Here's the web page link to the CTC basis of their campaign for legal access.

.

Edited August 13, 201411 yr by flecc

I'm now totally confused. If you can't be prosecuted for the offence of riding on a footpath, what offence are you committing?

 

The article you linked makes a mess of things by confusing the terms footway (i.e. a pedestrian area beside a road) and footpath (i.e. those marked on an OS map by short, regulary spaced dashes).

 

You are not allowed to cycle on a footpath.

 

Although that hasn't stopped me on paths that are perfectly suitable for mixed use and I've rarely had any issues - a couple of "you shouldn't be cycling here" I've had, which are normally replaied with "I know" and by them I'm long gone and past the point of conflict.

 

One time during the winter the path was about 3 feet underwater so I went around it. Got a severe rollicking for riding on the fairway. Now I have my trusty bike cam I will remember to point it at any protagonists.

 

If a footpath is blocked, impassable or difficult to follow you are allowed to take a suitable alternative route, as long as that route, as far as is reasonably practical, stays close to the origininal footpaths/bridleways course. It's also the land owners responsibility to ensure a right of way remains free of obstructions and is passable.

 

So I would have told the golf club to do one and chastised them at the same time for failing to maintain the right of way as per thier legal obligations.

 

As to the OP's original question:-

 

Can landowners restrict usage of public rights of way

 

They can in certain scenarios - i.e. during lambing season, building works or dangerous conditions (i.e. a landslide) - however, they are obliged to sign out an alternative route that should as close as possible to the original route and not add to much extra distance (or reduce it, perversely) and should be passable. This should only be temporary and the original right of way should be restored as soon as possible. Landowners can also suggest an alternative route (i.e. across a field rather than close beside a dwelling) but the right of way users have no obligation to follow the suggested alternative. This very scenario is in place on one of my local rides in fact - the farmer has put up sign suggesting an alternative route through a field to avoid the farmhouse/farmyard. He's even laid gravel and made access easy - easier than opening the farm gates at least. Nearly everyone use the altenative as it's much nicer.

 

I know an awful lot about rights of way and public access issues as I used to run Scouting courses on navigation for walking/mountain biking.

Edited August 13, 201411 yr by amigafan2003

Please note - in the above post I'm only referring to the "public rights of way" footpaths/bridleways (marked by green dashes or red dsahes, depending on OS map scale).

 

There are consessionary paths (marked by black dotted lines) and permissive paths (marked by orange dashes) - access to these paths are entirely at the discretion of the land owner and they have no obligation to maintain them or maintian access to them. They can be closed off for example during shooting season for example.

Just to clarify... In this case the golf club has erected signs warning about flying golf balls finishing with no cycling. I use this track regularly and no club official has ever challenged me about my riding through. I just get the odd comments from a few disgruntled players which I generally ignore, but now armed with the information provided in this post I feel more able to stand my ground and not feel like a trespasser. I should also add that most of the players offer a greeting and wave me through.

I am pleasantly surprised by the number of knowledgeable people on here willing to offer advice, so many thanks to all...

Phill

The article you linked makes a mess of things by confusing the terms footway (i.e. a pedestrian area beside a road) and footpath (i.e. those marked on an OS map by short, regulary spaced dashes).

 

You are not allowed to cycle on a footpath.

Thanks for trying to sort me out, but now I'm even more confused. This seems pretty clear to me, and I've seen it repeated in many other instances:

 

It’s an offence to ride your bike on any footpath or causeway which is by the side of any road and which is set apart for the accommodation of foot passengers. (HA 1835, s. 72)

 

Why is this phrase included?

"which is by the side of any road "

 

Can you point me at any law that says you can't ride on a footpath away from the side of the road other than when it's specifically prohibited by signs or bye-laws, etc.

Thanks for trying to sort me out, but now I'm even more confused. This seems pretty clear to me, and I've seen it repeated in many other instances:

 

It’s an offence to ride your bike on any footpath or causeway which is by the side of any road and which is set apart for the accommodation of foot passengers. (HA 1835, s. 72)

 

Why is this phrase included?

"which is by the side of any road "

 

Can you point me at any law that says you can't ride on a footpath away from the side of the road other than when it's specifically prohibited by signs or bye-laws, etc.

 

That article is dealing with a highways issue which is why is restricts itself to those footways (see ) under it's jurisdiction - there is different legislation dealing with public rights of way.

 

But essentially you are correct - it is not an offence to cycle on a footpath (as in the public right of ways I'm talking about) - note that I never said it was an offence - but if you cycle on a footpath, then you are not adhering to it's permitted use and that's classed as a it's a civil wrong (i.e. "tort") thus you can be prosecuted (via civil means) for trespass by the land owner.

 

It's also worth noting that if trespassing a landowner can use reasonable force to remove you from the land or obstruct your progress. I've been shot at once whilst sprinting across a field in the Forest of Bowland - I don't think that counts as reasonable force!

Edited August 14, 201411 yr by amigafan2003