Can landowners restrict usage of public rights of way

[amigafan2003]

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.

 

[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.

 

[Gubbins]

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

 

[Deleted member 4366]

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.

 

[amigafan2003]

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!

 

[flecc]

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.
.

 

[Deleted member 4366]

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?

 

[flecc]

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.
.

 

[amigafan2003]

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).

 

[amigafan2003]

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).

 

[electric.mike]

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

 

[flecc]

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
.

 

[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.
.

 

[amigafan2003]

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!).

 

[flecc]

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.
.

 

[jdone]

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 **** 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.

 

[flecc]

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.
.

 

[jackhandy]

[quote uid=8620 name="jdone" post=231252]<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

 

[john h]

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.

 

[JohnCade]

"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."