Mick F wrote:Yep, I agree too I suppose. ............ the OP was asking about pushing a bike, remember.
Yep, pushing it could be ok. Just try pushing a car along a footpath. What's the difference?
Let us just assume that pushing a bike is an act of trespass because it is not included in the normal right of passage down a footpath. That is a purely civil matter, it is not breaking a law. Propelling a motor vehicle down a footpath would also be a trespass but it is not a very good comparison because in the case of motor vehicles it is also a criminal offence.
it would be interesting to enquire of the council if the signs are theirs or not? when I spoke of 2 signs I wasnt thinking of one at either end but the fact there are 2 one on each side of the road at the far end of the lane. I dont think I have seen that before, certainly not for hickville. Unless its a local parish council and some of the councillors live down there....
Last edited by mercalia on 27 Oct 2014, 8:56pm, edited 1 time in total.
Having had a look at the the sattelite picture there seems to be a bridlepath running alongside the river that meets up with the road near the underpass. Not ideal when it's wet but avoids any issues with the local turnip https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Mud ... 68857d4fb3
Mick F wrote:You are not permitted to propel a vehicle along a public footpath.
A key word isn't propel but drive. Riding a bike is driving it, wheeling a bike isn't driving.
("Propel" is used in phrases like "mechanically propelled vehicle", not to determine that because is vehicle is being propelled it is therefore also being driven.)
Thus riding (=driving) a bike on road-side footpaths isn't allowed under the 1835 Highways Act, as Bicycler says a criminal act, but wheeling it is.
(Yes, pushing a car is driving it, while pushing a bike isn't driving. This is a quirk of the law.)
Mick F wrote:You are not permitted to propel a vehicle along a public footpath.
A key word isn't propel but drive. Riding a bike is driving it, wheeling a bike isn't driving.
("Propel" is used in phrases like "mechanically propelled vehicle", not to determine that because is vehicle is being propelled it is therefore also being driven.)
Thus riding (=driving) a bike on road-side footpaths isn't allowed under the 1835 Highways Act, as Bicycler says a criminal act, but wheeling it is.
(Yes, pushing a car is driving it, while pushing a bike isn't driving. This is a quirk of the law.)
The law I was referring to wasn't the one referring to footpaths next to roads (pavements) because this lane isn't that type of footpath. The Road Traffic Act makes it an offence to drive a motor vehicle down a public footpath, bridleway or restricted byway.
Subject to the provisions of this section, if without lawful authority a person drives a mechanically propelled vehicle— (a)on to or upon any common land, moorland or land of any other description, not being land forming part of a road, or (b)on any road being a footpath, bridleway or restricted byway, he is guilty of an offence.
So, to answer your question Mick, it is generally an offence to drive your motor anywhere other than a public road (common exceptions include things like access to property or where you have the landowner's permission)
Yes, the OP question seems to be about the civil offence of trespass, the "usual accompaniment".
Motor vehicles generally can't be driven off-road or on a footpath (except within 15 yards of a road in order to park there, etc). RTA 1988 s34. This restriction is for motor vehicles, which don't include bikes.
We cycled this way for many years but gates and No Cycles signs have appeared together with an abusive resident. Since the alternative routes involve long diversions onto even muddier tracks we resorted to pushing but the landowner claims that even this is forbidden.
CTC briefing is that this is a grey area legally but he is probably wrong.
What to do ? offer 20p for any damage to his nettles and advise him to sue if he can show that more damage has been caused ?
If you're not breaking any laws pushing your bike along this stretch of footpath,track/way get as many of your cycling friends together and have an organised push along it TBH I'd do it just to wind this oink up,little hitlers are there to be irritated
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
I am afraid that "the little Hitler" is obliged by our country's stupid laws to kick up a fuss about this. If he just lets it happen like a nice friendly person may feel like doing then after 20 years people can apply for a right from usage and forbid him from ever doing anything to his land that interferes with that right!
meic wrote:I am afraid that "the little Hitler" is obliged by our country's stupid laws to kick up a fuss about this. If he just lets it happen like a nice friendly person may feel like doing then after 20 years people can apply for a right from usage and forbid him from ever doing anything to his land that interferes with that right!
All a nice friendly person would need to do is put up a sign saying "public footpath, cycling permitted. Have a nice day, love TIm" and that problem would be solved. He could even if he had his head screwed on get paid some money by the council for allowing cyclists to use his land on a permissive basis. It is clearly an important link, just the kind of thing councils and Sustrans like securing. Contrary to popular myth, permissive access never becomes a right.
By the way, I hope somebody from the cycle campaign has looked into historical evidence of the status of this route as an alternative to the recent user evidence.
meic wrote:I am afraid that "the little Hitler" is obliged by our country's stupid laws to kick up a fuss about this. If he just lets it happen like a nice friendly person may feel like doing then after 20 years people can apply for a right from usage and forbid him from ever doing anything to his land that interferes with that right!
I have been following this thread and was forming the "unpleasant owner" opinion. But you raise a good point regarding acquired rights. Whilst I don't know the surface, I also wonder if bikes might damage the surface more and place a greater maintenance cost burden on the owner (assuming the owner has to pay for maintenance; assuming it is the responsibility of the owner to maintain a public right of way).
meic wrote:I am afraid that "the little Hitler" is obliged by our country's stupid laws to kick up a fuss about this. If he just lets it happen like a nice friendly person may feel like doing then after 20 years people can apply for a right from usage and forbid him from ever doing anything to his land that interferes with that right!
I have been following this thread and was forming the "unpleasant owner" opinion. But you raise a good point regarding acquired rights. Whilst I don't know the surface, I also wonder if bikes might damage the surface more and place a greater maintenance cost burden on the owner (assuming the owner has to pay for maintenance; assuming it is the responsibility of the owner to maintain a public right of way).
As I said above there all kinds of ways of preventing dedication of rights whilst still permitting use. This lane looks to be an unsurfaced road along which there is a public right of way on foot. Usually it is the highway authority (council) which is responsible for repairing highways, though only to the standard required for public use (so in this case probably use on foot). It will usually be up to the owners to maintain the road suitable for their motor vehicle access. I honestly don't believe cycle usage is likely to add a significant extra maintenance burden in this case.
meic wrote:I am afraid that "the little Hitler" is obliged by our country's stupid laws to kick up a fuss about this. If he just lets it happen like a nice friendly person may feel like doing then after 20 years people can apply for a right from usage and forbid him from ever doing anything to his land that interferes with that right!
Show me the laws in question that somehow someone pushing a bike along a footpath,allows anything more sinister to happen other than people walking that footpath wheeling a bicycle along by their side.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden