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 phrase is included to make the reference specific to one law only, the national law which entitles a police officer to take you to court for the offence of cycling on the footway (pavement).

 

There are other laws applicable, some with various restrictions on how they can be implemented. Examples are the national law on Trespass, the much newer and easier to implement national law on Criminal Trespass, the Countryside Acts, plus byelaws issued by local authorities and such bodies as the Forestry Commission, English Nature, the National Trust etc. All these can involve penalties at law, two of them actionable by a police officer (trespass and criminal trespass).

 

It's the multiplicity which makes this such a difficult subject, and which is the foundation for the CTC campaign for a root and branch change in the law.

.

Still totally confused, as you both seem to have given different answerd. Let me ask the question a different way.

 

We have a footpath that runs directly from my house to the town centre. It's wide like a shared cycle path. There's no road alongside it. It's not marked on the OS map. There's no bye-law or signs that say no cycling. It's not private land. Can I cycle on it legally?

Still totally confused, as you both seem to have given different answerd. Let me ask the question a different way.

 

We have a footpath that runs directly from my house to the town centre. It's wide like a shared cycle path. There's no road alongside it. It's not marked on the OS map. There's no bye-law or signs that say no cycling. It's not private land. Can I cycle on it legally?

 

 

They aren't really different answers, it's just that amigafan's post has two omissions, that a police officer can also take action against trespass as well as a landowner although that is rare, and the existence of the law on criminal trespass which is more easily actionable and which the police do use routinely. Otherwise we are in agreement.

 

To answer your question on that path, it has an owner, presumably the local authority. Wrongly or rightly, there is a general presumption that paths are for pedestrian use and most councils and landowners will see it that way. That leaves open the charge of trespass which permits the landowner to legally tell you that you must not use it for cycling since it is an offence. Should you then persist in that cycling, they can take you to court for the civil offence. If a relevant byelaw is in place they can fine you and if necessary take you to court to enforce the penalty.

 

Cycling off road is a "gotcha"situation, we are most of the time offending someone or something. The CTC say that 22% of rights of way are accessible to cyclists, but of course they are predominantly bridleways and greenways, hardly any being footpaths. And as they remark, those permitted routes are often inaccessible to bicycles due to their poor state. That leaves what we can realistically access almost always legally wrong in some way or other.

.

Edited August 14, 201411 yr by flecc

For criminal trespass there has to be "an intent to willfully damage or remove property" - I don't think that could be levelled at a cyclist simply riding down a public right of way footpath. Without that it's simple trespass, and police guidance states the first course of action is to inform the trespasser of thier transgression and to give them a chance to remedy the situation (i..e. bugger off sharpish).

Still totally confused, as you both seem to have given different answerd. Let me ask the question a different way.

 

I don't think we've given different answers. We've just given our answers from a different perspective.

 

We have a footpath that runs directly from my house to the town centre. It's wide like a shared cycle path. There's no road alongside it. It's not marked on the OS map. There's no bye-law or signs that say no cycling. It's not private land. Can I cycle on it legally?

 

 

How do you know it's not private land? Just becuase it's not surrounded by a fence and a locked gate doesn't mean it's not private. If you want to know if you are allowed to cycle on that route, ask the land owner. Your local authority can assit with this.

 

I'd be practical about it and continue cycling on it and make enquiries if you're subsequently asked to desist cycling on that route by the land owner, police officer or local authority official (everyone else can do one - esp dog walkers).

 

Remember, our public rights of way were created by "trespassers" continually using routes to such an extent that they became an irrevocable right of way. There is a clause in the public right of way legislation that states a route becomes a right of way after 20 years of continuous, regular use. How long has the route you're talking about existed d8veh?

 

That leaves open the charge of trespass which permits the landowner to legally tell you that you must not use it for cycling since it is an offence. Should you then persist in that cycling, they can take you to court for the civil offence

 

Careful with your wording there flecc - if it's not a footway beside a road then it wouldn't be an offence, it would be a civil wrong (or "tort"), of which category trespass belongs to.

 

 

****EDIT****

 

I've also been reading through my law books as something else occured to me, and it's a very important point in trespass cases - it's only trespass if you are asked to leave and you refuse.* Therefore, simply riding along a footpath is not trespass if no one catches you ;-)

 

*however, as we're talking about law nothing is ever that simple. There are exceptions when the case is persistent (i.e. continually driving over a neighbours drive to reach your garden etc).

Edited August 14, 201411 yr by amigafan2003

I've also been reading through my law books as something else occured to me, and it's a very important point in trespass cases - it's only trespass if you are asked to leave and you refuse. Therefore, simply riding along a footpath is not trespass if no one catches you ;-)

 

If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

 

Sorry Grasshopper i couldn't resist

Careful with your wording there flecc - if it's not a footway beside a road then it wouldn't be an offence, it would be a civil wrong (or "tort"), of which category trespass belongs to.

 

Yes, I did mean in the civil sense, but as you say, still potentially trespass.

 

I've also been reading through my law books as something else occured to me, and it's a very important point in trespass cases - it's only trespass if you are asked to leave and you refuse.* Therefore, simply riding along a footpath is not trespass if no one catches you ;-)

 

Indeed, that's why i posted in this way:

 

- - - - permits the landowner to legally tell you that you must not use it for cycling - - - - - - - - - - - Should you then persist in that cycling, they can take you to court

.

Edited August 14, 201411 yr by flecc

For criminal trespass there has to be "an intent to willfully damage or remove property" - I don't think that could be levelled at a cyclist simply riding down a public right of way footpath. Without that it's simple trespass, and police guidance states the first course of action is to inform the trespasser of thier transgression and to give them a chance to remedy the situation (i..e. bugger off sharpish).

 

Of course there has to be damage for this charge to be levelled. Unfortunately this is one of the more modern laws that I hate due to the catch-all nature. Since it's so easy to use, some police officers are inclined to use it for even the slightest hint of damage and magistrates do convict those unaware of the true position.

 

One police case I know of did not even have any actual damage involved, just something that could be presented as damage. But the accused teenager would certainly have been convicted had I not got involved by engaging a legal aid criminal law solicitor for him, who in turn used a barrister to prove his innocence in the magistrates court.

.

Edited August 14, 201411 yr by flecc

Of course there has to be damage for this charge to be levelled. Unfortunately this is one of the more modern laws that I hate due to the catch-all nature. Since it's so easy to use, some police officers are inclined to use it for even the slightest hint of damage and magistrates do convict those unaware of the true position.

 

One police case I know of did not even have any actual damage involved, just something that could be presented as damage. But the accused teenager would certainly have been convicted had I not got involved by engaging a legal aid criminal law solicitor for him, who in turn used a barrister to prove his innocence in the magistrates court.

.

 

Well of course, the correct application of law requires a knowledge of said law, something which often evades the police and even magistrates (who have only basic legal training - court clerks are responsible for advising magistrates on points of law - but they only usually do that if the magistrate asks for advice!).

Edited August 14, 201411 yr by amigafan2003

Well of course, the correct application of law requires a knowledge of said law, something which often evades the police and even magistrates (who have only basic legal training - court clerks are responsible for advising magistrates on points of law - but they only usually do that is the magistrate asks for advice!).

 

My experience too. That court case I mentioned was just one of a series that I was involved in with defendants using that solicitor through the 1980s. I only remember one instance of involvement of the court clerk in those.

.

In reality this will come down to the localised policy of the Police Force.

In my area's Police Force they have an active policy of not attending calls for trespass unless there has been damaged caused.

 

If a landowner asks you to leave, leave and there will be no trouble.

 

In terms of access:

 

I have a route that is a public footpath (expressly excludes cycles) and is within an area of private land with a number of private bike worthy tracks.

 

I politely emailed the owner of the tracks around the (prohibited) footpath and requested access around 5 years ago- and they told me to piss off.

 

I have used said prohibited footpaths and private tracks for 5 years now, a few times per week, with no issue- if I see someone I say hello and make sure I give them priority of way

 

Polite, courteous rule breakers are much easier to swallow for the landowner.

Polite, courteous rule breakers are much easier to swallow for the landowner.

 

Absolutely, and I have politely and considerately trespassed in the countryside, both walking and cycling, for many years with no problems whatsoever.

 

Good manners and good sense can work miracles, even with police officers at any time one might get involved. Aggression or confrontation gets one nowhere other than in trouble.

.

<Good manners and good sense can work miracles, even with police officers at any time one might get involved. Aggression or confrontation gets one nowhere other than in trouble.<br />.<br/>

 

Absolutely _ And play the occasional total Pillock at his own game:

Call him Sir

For many years when i lived in glasgow i would cycle in the glasgow green (a large park in the east of glasgow) this is common land , un like any other park in glasgow, you have the right to graze sheep cattle or any livestock, you still have the right to hang out your washing on it as was done when i was young , trouble came when the council took over the running of it , they started running pipe band comp and festivals blocking off access and charging the public to get in, one day i went to go thru it and was stopped at the gate and asked to pay, i pointed out it was common land and a public right of way i also pointed out that i was going to visit my friend who lives and works on the green robert parsonage (humain society) i phoned him , he walked along to the gate, we then pointed out to the police at the gate by this time, it is a public right of way they took down the gate and let me and a large group of people that were behind the gate in , ( later on that day someone fell into the clyde robert could not get a boat in to the water because of barriers they had put up blocking his access they were rescued from the far bank they were lucky) these days that part is left un blocked and they now consult with him over right of way access on the green.

"The law locks up the hapless felon

who steals the goose from off the common,

but lets the greater felon loose

who steals the common from the goose."

Interesting account from John H. Parks that are on common land are rare, but still exist. There is one in Lincoln, where residents have a right to graze horses, and presumably cattle as well. I once spent a night on there in a tent, but was unsure about my rights. I ride by pedal cycle on lots of footpaths where I am pretty sure I am in the wrong.

 

I cause no damage, and give way to pedestrians. If challenged, I am polite and agree to leave, sometimes claiming that I got lost. My journeys have included grass paths on river embankments, some rural roads which although probably public are not surfaced, and farm roadways which are definitely private. I avoid these if they lead to farmhouses. I am a firm believer that if you don`t ask, they can`t refuse.

 

John`s comment about hanging out washing reminded me of some northern towns. It was the custom to unofficially close some side streets on washdays, usually Mondays. The residents would then hang washing lines across the street and hang out the washing. There were still cars parked in the street. I believe I have seen this in Widnes and Warrington, and possibly in Lancashire, and also Tyneside back in the 1970s. I don`t know if it still goes on.

Bear in mind folks that the Law in Scotland is completely different from that in England so most of this thread does not apply . The Scottish Land Reform Act gives unalienable rights to wander at will anywhere ( with some exceptions ) . There have been many clashes with Landowners unaware of their obligations but eventually the Law prevails. Basically if you can walk somewhere you can also cycle, except pavements, without restriction. We have access officers in each council area who take complaints regarding blocked paths, locked gates illegal signs etc seriously and several owners have found themselves with a criminal conviction for repeated contraventions. Gardens etc can of course be fenced off as private, but recent attempts to have whole areas regarded as gardens have been thwarted by court rulings restricting this feature to areas decided by the court and so far upheld at appeal. There are still one or two problem areas but the Ramblers and other pressure groups are active in forcing change. So come on up and get cycling.

 

For further insight see http://www.andywightman.com/?cat=49

Click on his blog list for more interesting reading..

This doc may be of interest to access-o-nerds:

 

http://www.sustrans.org.uk/sites/default/files/images/files/migrated-pdfs/Access%20Control%20Guide%20Jan%202012.pdf

 

Useful summary table on page 3.

 

One experiment I want to try is to leave my car parked in a politician's driveway in London when I go there for a weekend.

 

Since clamping and removal on private land is now an offence, I think there is nothing they can do apart from shout and wave their hands.