Riding on Footpaths .

[KeithR]

There is a difference between pavements beside roads that are owned by the Highways Agency or the Council and Footpaths that are owned by whoever the landowner is and which there is a public right of way over.

I'm aware of that - I'm also aware that people take things out of context all the time, and taking a post saying "riding on footpaths is not illegal" at face value could get someone into bother.

So I added some additional context.

 

[SquireRides]

I don't ride on footpaths restricted by kissing gates or styles put there to discourage bike, horse or vehicular access.
I respect that.

This is a great test. Generally, if I'm not invited on to land and don't have right of way, I avoid trespassing.

But English access laws are ancient and not quite that black and white.

If the landowner has implied bikes/horses aren't welcome by putting up a style or kissing gate, keep out. If there's a footpath along an open farm track, for example, or an ancient ridge-way over an open moor, I'd consider going for it.

 

[Supratad]

I'm aware of that - I'm also aware that people take things out of context all the time, and taking a post saying "riding on footpaths is not illegal" at face value could get someone into bother.

So I added some additional context.

OK but this is in a thread specifically about footpaths as ROWs in the countryside, not about footways and roadside pavements.

 

[KeithR]

OK but this is in a thread specifically about footpaths as ROWs in the countryside, not about footways and roadside pavements.

I'm also aware that people take things out of context all the time

 

[nickfrog]

There's a bit of a clue in the word "footpath". Compliance is important for the sake of the sport and the cohabitation with other users.

 

[OldBean]

I don't have a bell, I always think a cheery 'hello' is enough.

One guy who was walking down the middle of the road, i said 'hello!' to and he jumped out of his skin (like he was surprised there was anyone using an actual road). He then told me I should have a bell because there's a lot of deaf people around here.

I'm sure I looked incredulous at this idea.

But he went on to claim that people who are hard of hearing are more likely to hear a high pitched ping than someone's voice.

True or false? I don't know...

True. I wear hearing aids to keep ‘er indoors happy..and can confirm that without them I cannot hear low frequency sounds so yes he was right .
My bell has earned its keep many times and several “thank yous” ......
Headphones/ear bids should be banned Together with small off leash dogs ....seriously dangerous!

 

[OldBean]

Couple of us were riding a bridlepath as designated on OS latest map. White van mounted farm employee stopped to advise us that the road we were riding was for horses only and the farmer (who I happen to be acquainted with) did lot like cyclists using it.
All said quite reasonably with no aggro .
The road surface was solid concrete ...really good for horses hooves we thought ,!.
We won t be going that way again but I think WVM was wrong.

 

[KeithR]

Couple of us were riding a bridlepath as designated on OS latest map. White van mounted farm employee stopped to advise us that the road we were riding was for horses only and the farmer (who I happen to be acquainted with) did lot like cyclists using it.
All said quite reasonably with no aggro .
The road surface was solid concrete ...really good for horses hooves we thought ,!.
We won t be going that way again but I think WVM was wrong.

He was, 100%. Landowners have no control over how a bridleway is used, as long as it's being used lawfully - and cycling (including ebikes) is unequivocally a lawful use of a bridleway. As the article I link to below says, a highway is a right, not a thing - and the right isn't granted by the landowner.

Useful summary here:

Everything you always wanted to know about bridleways… – Open MTB

openmtb.org.uk

It's true that arguably the most important piece of legislation - section 30 of the Countryside Act 1968 ("CA 1968") - has this to say (my emphasis):

Any member of the public shall have, as a right of way, the right to ride a bicycle, not being a mechanically propelled vehicle, on any bridleway, but in exercising that right cyclists shall give way to pedestrians and persons on horseback.

But s189(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 ("RTA 1988") says that "an electrically assisted pedal cycle of such a class as may be prescribed by regulations so made" (such as our ebikes) is not a motor vehicle; and s30(5) CA 1968 explicitly excludes as a "mechanically propelled vehicle", any vehicle caught within the scope of s189(1) RTA 1988.

Such as electrically assisted pedal cycles.

So yes, ebikes are unequivocally allowed, by law, on bridleways.

 

[MitchF]

Regular, I’m on them more than walkers. Always slow and greet, always slow down and pull to one side for horses.
Don’t have a bell, a gear change, a locked back wheel for a couple of seconds draws there attention.
There have been more people since lock down though.

I am experiencing a lot more people who are E-curious ??

 

[urastus]

I don't have a bell, I always think a cheery 'hello' is enough.

One guy who was walking down the middle of the road, i said 'hello!' to and he jumped out of his skin (like he was surprised there was anyone using an actual road). He then told me I should have a bell because there's a lot of deaf people around here.

I'm sure I looked incredulous at this idea.

But he went on to claim that people who are hard of hearing are more likely to hear a high pitched ping than someone's voice.

True or false? I don't know...

If you put the bell on the end of a stick and hit the pedestrians with it, that would work for those with hearing difficulties as well as those who hear OK. And you can still say you're using a bell!

 

[Jackware]

Couple of us were riding a bridlepath as designated on OS latest map. White van mounted farm employee stopped to advise us that the road we were riding was for horses only and the farmer (who I happen to be acquainted with) did lot like cyclists using it.
All said quite reasonably with no aggro .
The road surface was solid concrete ...really good for horses hooves we thought ,!.
We won t be going that way again but I think WVM was wrong.

Sounds like a call for a mass cycle along that BW

 

[Norange]

Rule 1 generally applies. My local woods are full of tracks, along with a mix of FP, BW and permissive paths. I've explored pretty thoroughly over the last 15 years. My rules are, no hooning unless I can stop within line of sight, slow and sensible when passing, give way to anyone who looks like they need it, comply with signs about logging, avoid area where they keep pheasants. No conflicts in that time.

So generally I'm fine with riding FP, just follow those rules. I appreciate I might think differently if I lived somewhere with tons of walkers. But basically, I still think it's fine there. I suspect some grumpy walkers have had adverse experiences with bikers before. So by being responsible and riding on a FP I can show that there does not need to be conflict. And generally, it's better to spread bikes across the RoW network rather than condense them.

 

[JackieA]

Hypocrisy indeed. I once got harangued by 20 walkers about the damage my tyres were doing. Any attempt to argue with them that 40 boots were doing far more damage than than I ever could was just shouted down en masse. You can't make salient points against a baying mob, some of whom were waving their hiking poles about. Militant ramblers just want it all for themselves, campaigning against bikers, horse riders and any form of motorised outdoor activity. Even with so much footpath available to them, they still want to stop others using legal ROWs and also have right-to-roam as well.

Got to admit to tricking a walker some years ago. At a gate on a bridleway was a sign showing a walker crossed out (ie the end of right to roam) he asked me what it meant. Keeping my face as straight as possible I suggested that the track was closed to walkers and rode away.

 

[Kentish]

He was, 100%. Landowners have no control over how a bridleway is used, as long as it's being used lawfully - and cycling (including ebikes) is unequivocally a lawful use of a bridleway. As the article I link to below says, a highway is a right, not a thing - and the right isn't granted by the landowner.

Useful summary here:

Everything you always wanted to know about bridleways… – Open MTB

openmtb.org.uk

It's true that arguably the most important piece of legislation - section 30 of the Countryside Act 1968 ("CA 1968") - has this to say (my emphasis):


But s189(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 ("RTA 1988") says that "an electrically assisted pedal cycle of such a class as may be prescribed by regulations so made" (such as our ebikes) is not a motor vehicle; and s30(5) CA 1968 explicitly excludes as a "mechanically propelled vehicle", any vehicle caught within the scope of s189(1) RTA 1988.

Such as electrically assisted pedal cycles.

So yes, ebikes are unequivocally allowed, by law, on bridleways.

I stumbled on an odd one the other day - a ‘permissive bridleway'.

It was pointed out to me a couple of weeks ago by a woman on a horse (yes of course it was) as I went to ride down it. She told me bikes were not allowed on it but horses were. Of course a discussion was had. Apparently its a path or bridleway the landowner grants permission for it to be used. He also calls the shots. It maybe bikes/horses/loose dogs etc are not allowed. It maybe closed during certain parts of the year. But it is not a right of way as such.

It was marked up on the post with the same red ( think) arrow but with permissive bridleway in text, not just bridleway. Apparently they don’t appear on OS maps either.

i argued that if there were restrictions on this particular permissive bridleway how would I know? As there were no restrictions written on the post how would we know horses were even allowed, never mind bikes? She didn‘t know the landowner, so it was pretty clear she didn’t really have a clue. She gave up with me at that point and we said our goodbyes.

 

[SquireRides]

I stumbled on an odd one the other day - a ‘permissive bridleway'.

It was pointed out to me a couple of weeks ago by a woman on a horse (yes of course it was) as I went to ride down it. She told me bikes were not allowed on it but horses were. Of course a discussion was had. Apparently its a path or bridleway the landowner grants permission for it to be used. He also calls the shots. It maybe bikes/horses/loose dogs etc are not allowed. It maybe closed during certain parts of the year. But it is not a right of way as such.

It was marked up on the post with the same red ( think) arrow but with permissive bridleway in text, not just bridleway. Apparently they don’t appear on OS maps either.

i argued that if there were restrictions on this particular permissive bridleway how would I know? As there were no restrictions written on the post how would we know horses were even allowed, never mind bikes? She didn‘t know the landowner, so it was pretty clear she didn’t really have a clue. She gave up with me at that point and we said our goodbyes.

I sympathize. If you found an open track that people are obviously using (even if a lot of them are horse riders), I'd have probably assumed you could use it.

It might show up on OS map as 'other right of way' but in my experience permissive routes have no right of way, so would show as a simple track on the map. Quite a few parts of Sustrans National Cycle Routes are permissive, because Sustrans has negotiated access. So you might see the orange markings of a 'national route' but no green/pink lines for a right-of-way.

 

[KeithR]

I stumbled on an odd one the other day - a ‘permissive bridleway'.

It was pointed out to me a couple of weeks ago by a woman on a horse (yes of course it was) as I went to ride down it. She told me bikes were not allowed on it but horses were. Of course a discussion was had. Apparently its a path or bridleway the landowner grants permission for it to be used. He also calls the shots. It maybe bikes/horses/loose dogs etc are not allowed. It maybe closed during certain parts of the year. But it is not a right of way as such.

It was marked up on the post with the same red ( think) arrow but with permissive bridleway in text, not just bridleway. Apparently they don’t appear on OS maps either.

i argued that if there were restrictions on this particular permissive bridleway how would I know? As there were no restrictions written on the post how would we know horses were even allowed, never mind bikes? She didn‘t know the landowner, so it was pretty clear she didn’t really have a clue. She gave up with me at that point and we said our goodbyes.

Yep. Not much to add to what SquireRides has said except to agree that permissive tracks are different beasts altogether to legal rights of way - there's no legal underpinning to access available in the case of these tracks.

It's worth having access to OS mapping just to cover off things like this: they're pretty definitive as long as they're newish, and although they might not win you an argument on the day, they're worth their weight in gold in helping to avoid getting into such arguments in the first place.

i argued that if there were restrictions on this particular permissive bridleway how would I know?

I quite agree - if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck... A permissive path really should be clearly signed as such, with any restrictions on the type and time of use made clear, which this one seems to have lacked.

PITA, isn't it?

 

[HORSPWR]

I'm in QLD and while I'll never be a "roadie" (no lycra and I don't ride line abreast with other budgies while blocking the road), on shared paths with the road bike I only bell and/or slow down if children or animals are a factor. Most of these Sheeple have ear buds in anyway and if they can't be aware of their environment then it's natural selection time. With Covid, the Sheeple population here exploded....hence me getting an eMTB so weekdays I could use the mostly empty state forest tracks.
Never knew what I was missing. I think I'll leave the great unwashed to their footpaths from here on.

In the Northern Territory we're encouraged to ride on the footpaths, saves us from getting rear ended by drunk drivers ?