Pushing a bike on a footpath.

Commuting, Day rides, Audax, Incidents, etc.
Bicycler
Posts: 3400
Joined: 4 Dec 2013, 3:33pm

Re: Pushing a bike on a footpath.

Post by Bicycler »

Crank v Brooks establishes (in the context of a person crossing a zebra crossing) that a person wheeling a bike is a foot-passenger (pedestrian) and therefore a driver had been under an obligation to give way to the person on the crossing. This is irrelevant to the matter of trespass.

Nobody is disputing that a person wheeling a bike is a pedestrian. Case law suggests that pedestrians do not have unlimited rights on footpaths. The debate surrounds whether a bicycle is a "usual accompaniment" for a pedestrian and thus whether pushing one falls inside the right to pass along a footpath, or whether it does not fall into that category and is a trespass. In R v Mathias (1861) the judge directed the jury:
that the owner of the soil may remove anything that encumbers his close, except such things as are usual accompaniments of a large class of foot passengers, being so small and light, as neither to be a nuisance to other passengers or injurious to the soil.


Sheffield CC were definitely wrong to state as fact those items which do and don't constitute usual accompaniments and may or not be "taken on all Public Rights Of Way" as that has never been determined. At least the latter 2 criteria depend upon local circumstances so it is likely that whether or not something is a trespass depends to some extent on the footpath itself.
Last edited by Bicycler on 4 Nov 2014, 12:02pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 19793
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: Pushing a bike on a footpath.

Post by [XAP]Bob »

Bicycler wrote:Crank v Brooks establishes (in the context of a person crossing a zebra crossing) that a person wheeling a bike is a foot-passenger (pedestrian) and therefore a driver had been under an obligation to give way to the person on the crossing. This is irrelevant to the matter of trespass.

It's not entirely irrelevant, since it established the first sentence of your next paragraph, but I wasn't trying to read more out of it than that sentence.
Nobody is disputing that a person wheeling a bike is a pedestrian. Case law suggests that pedestrians do not have unlimited rights on footpaths. The debate surrounds whether a bicycle is a "usual accompaniment" for a pedestrian and thus whether pushing one falls inside the right to pass along a footpath, or whether it does not fall into that category and is a trespass. In R v Matthias (1861) the judge directed the jury:
that the owner of the soil may remove anything that encumbers his close, except such things as are usual accompaniments of a large class of foot passengers, being so small and light, as neither to be a nuisance to other passengers or injurious to the soil.


Excellent information - nothing in there is defined, just as UK law should be ;)
What is a large class of foot passengers?
- Parents of toddlers/babies? Disabled? Wrestlers (think about it..)?
What is "so small and light"
- A torch? a bike? a wheelbarrow?

Sheffield CC were definitely wrong to state as fact those items which do and don't constitute usual accompaniments and may or not be "taken on all Public Rights Of Way" as that has never been determined. At least the latter 2 criteria depend upon local circumstances so it is likely that whether or not something is a trespass depends to some extent on the footpath itself.

There aren't many things that would be lighter than a bike without a person atop, and with most council footpaths being tarmac (for the benefit of the parents/disabled above) it would be hard to suggest that they do significant damage.
Actually I can't think of many mud tracks which would be more damaged by a bike being wheeled along than by the feet of the person doing the wheeling...
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.
Bicycler
Posts: 3400
Joined: 4 Dec 2013, 3:33pm

Re: Pushing a bike on a footpath.

Post by Bicycler »

I think it was taken for granted in Mathias that somebody walking was by definition a foot passenger regardless of what they were pushing. AFAIK that has never been disputed in the context of trespass. If it were disputed we would have to be wary about applying the narrow decision about whether a person pushing a bicycle was a foot passenger for the purposes of the Zebra Pedestrian Crossings Regulations 1971 to the common law tort of trespass to land. A decision made is only a binding precedent for the specific issue that was considered.

FWIW, I agree that the latter two criteria are mostly non-issues regarding pushing bicycles. Maybe they could pose a nuisance on those paths only just wide enough for two pedestrians to pass (or even narrower). The more general stumbling block is the first criteria of being a "usual accompaniment" for a foot passenger. The few texts on rights of way law take the view that it wouldn't include bicycles. It is unlikely ever to get tested so we'll probably never get a definitive answer
User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 19793
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: Pushing a bike on a footpath.

Post by [XAP]Bob »

Bicycler wrote:I think it was taken for granted in Mathias that somebody walking was by definition a foot passenger regardless of what they were pushing. AFAIK that has never been disputed in the context of trespass. If it were disputed we would have to be wary about applying the narrow decision about whether a person pushing a bicycle was a foot passenger for the purposes of the Zebra Pedestrian Crossings Regulations 1971 to the common law tort of trespass to land. A decision made is only a binding precedent for the specific issue that was considered.

FWIW, I agree that the latter two criteria are mostly non-issues regarding pushing bicycles. Maybe they could pose a nuisance on those paths only just wide enough for two pedestrians to pass (or even narrower). The more general stumbling block is the first criteria of being a "usual accompaniment" for a foot passenger. The few texts on rights of way law take the view that it wouldn't include bicycles. It is unlikely ever to get tested so we'll probably never get a definitive answer

But then again a bra is used by less than half the population, so that isn't "usual" either.


Of course I'm not proposing that bras be banned on public footpaths, but what does "usual accompaniment" even mean*?
Does carrying an object attract the same "usual accompaniment" clause, or if carrying a bike (CX style) clearly allowed?


(*Yes I know, it means nothing until tested in law - I'd have expected it to mean anything not "exceptional")
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.
Bicycler
Posts: 3400
Joined: 4 Dec 2013, 3:33pm

Re: Pushing a bike on a footpath.

Post by Bicycler »

The wording used was "usual accompaniments of a large class of foot passengers" so clearly not requiring a majority. I don't think it is concerned with quantities of individual items either, more the types of things usually brought with pedestrians. To my mind the biggest stumbling block here is that a bicycle is a vehicle and it has been established that moving certain other vehicles (such as handcarts) is not included in a pedestrian's right of passage. Is a bicycle sufficiently unlike a cart to be viewed differently, as the type of thing pedestrians might be expected to have with them when exercising their right?

Times change and things do get viewed differently. Mathias concerned an old fashioned large pram. The jury viewed this as a usual accompaniment but were split on the issue of whether it amounted to a nuisance or injured the soil and they were dismissed. The same jury unsure of the legitimacy of pushing prams would probably have viewed pushing a bicycle as a trespass. No doubt we would now take it for granted that a pram is okay and maybe pushing bicycles has now become sufficiently normalised that we might now view it as a normal use of a footpath. We are unlikely ever to find out.

I have heard about carrying bikes to avoid trespassing before but I have no idea where it came from. It has become a cycling myth. The judge in Mathias considered things carried amongst the accompaniments to pedestrians so if you subscribe to the view that a bicycle isn't a 'usual' one then it isn't one when on your shoulder either.

I do occasionally push my bike down footpaths where cycling isn't allowed and where there isn't a convenient way to ride round. I have yet to have a nasty encounter but I think I would obey a request from the landowner if one was given as I couldn't be sure I had the right to use the footpath in that way. Sometimes it is in our interests to keep the peace. Luckily it is an issue which rarely raises its head because most landowners aren't bothered about the odd cyclist pushing their bike - one once congratulated me on being a cyclist who obeyed the no cycling sign and we had a good chat, a brew and some cake :D (he also gave me permission to cycle down the track whenever I chose :D :D ). It's just a shame that the landowner in the OP is so uncompromising.
User avatar
gaz
Posts: 14649
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent

Re: Pushing a bike on a footpath.

Post by gaz »

Should anybody wish to read Mathias in full it's linked from here: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=85109&start=15#p766399

Crank v Brooks: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=58598#p494460
High on a cocktail of flossy teacakes and marmalade
PRL
Posts: 607
Joined: 21 Jan 2007, 9:14pm
Location: Richmond upon Thames

Re: Pushing a bike on a footpath.

Post by PRL »

Bicycler wrote:I hope so too. Illegal use is definitely not use "as of right".

I have never seen that layout of a road with a no entry sign at either end and it just doesn't seem correct. I agree that the exception plates are exceptional :wink: Other TROs on rights of way invariably use "no vehicles" or "no motor vehicles" signs. I have never heard of a TRO which has been made to exclude people pushing bikes and I can't understand why one would exist..


The No Entry signs have now vanished which probably suggests they were unofficial.
jgurney
Posts: 1212
Joined: 10 May 2009, 8:34am

Re: Pushing a bike on a footpath.

Post by jgurney »

Bicycler wrote: The judge in Mathias considered things carried amongst the accompaniments to pedestrians so if you subscribe to the view that a bicycle isn't a 'usual' one then it isn't one when on your shoulder either.


I can see this leading to some very silly arguments. Would walking along a footpath carrying a pair of cycle wheels be lawful (e.g. while carrying them from a shop to the new owners home)? Would walking there carrying a bicycle frame, stripped of all components, be lawful? If the answer to both is 'yes' then would carrying a cycle with its wheels dismounted (i.e. carrying the frame with attachments plus the dismounted wheels) then logically also be lawful? If that is legal then why would carrying the cycle with the wheels attached in the usual places not be so? Or if either a frame or wheels may be carried but not both, might we see determined cyclists dismounting their wheels and carrying their de-wheeled machine along the path then returning for the wheels?
User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 19793
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: Pushing a bike on a footpath.

Post by [XAP]Bob »

jgurney wrote:
Bicycler wrote: The judge in Mathias considered things carried amongst the accompaniments to pedestrians so if you subscribe to the view that a bicycle isn't a 'usual' one then it isn't one when on your shoulder either.


I can see this leading to some very silly arguments. Would walking along a footpath carrying a pair of cycle wheels be lawful (e.g. while carrying them from a shop to the new owners home)? Would walking there carrying a bicycle frame, stripped of all components, be lawful? If the answer to both is 'yes' then would carrying a cycle with its wheels dismounted (i.e. carrying the frame with attachments plus the dismounted wheels) then logically also be lawful? If that is legal then why would carrying the cycle with the wheels attached in the usual places not be so? Or if either a frame or wheels may be carried but not both, might we see determined cyclists dismounting their wheels and carrying their de-wheeled machine along the path then returning for the wheels?


Or even just in different hands.
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.
Flinders
Posts: 3023
Joined: 10 Mar 2009, 6:47pm

Re: Pushing a bike on a footpath.

Post by Flinders »

How does a wheelchair figure legally when it comes to footpaths? And what about motorised ones?
jgurney
Posts: 1212
Joined: 10 May 2009, 8:34am

Re: Pushing a bike on a footpath.

Post by jgurney »

Flinders wrote:How does a wheelchair figure legally when it comes to footpaths?


According to an N Yorks CC footpaths officer a few years ago, there is a right to use them on public footpaths where that is already physically possible, but there is no general right to have a path maintained or improved, bridges built or stiles, etc, removed to make an otherwise unusable path fit for wheelchair access. However if a specific path had a very high level of use, especially of utility rather than leisure use, and changes could be made at reasonable cost, then it is thought possible that a discrimination case might succeed over such a path being unavailable to disabled people.
tyreon
Posts: 936
Joined: 4 Oct 2012, 4:39pm

Re: Pushing a bike on a footpath.

Post by tyreon »

I have enjoyed and have been educated by the arcane and well argued points by all the above contributors.

I went to sleep after page 2: zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Have you all collected your £300 pd day monies(plus additional expenses?)

This looks like a House of Lords discussion for our 600+ unelected elders,half of which will be absent or asleep...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Am not so good with Ricky Gervais humour!!
User avatar
gaz
Posts: 14649
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent

Re: Pushing a bike on a footpath.

Post by gaz »

jgurney wrote:I can see this leading to some very silly arguments.

I'm sure that the learned gentlemen of the courts will be happy to reassure you that any arguments this may lead to will not be in anyway silly, or make their proponents the subject of ridicule and that they will be happy to pursue such worthy and well reasoned arguments to the highest court in all the known lands; just so long as you can afford their fees :wink: .
High on a cocktail of flossy teacakes and marmalade
Bicycler
Posts: 3400
Joined: 4 Dec 2013, 3:33pm

Re: Pushing a bike on a footpath.

Post by Bicycler »

+1. There is no black and white here and if someone wanted to pursue this sort of dispute there would be no shortage of professional fee collectors willing to argue that the line ought to be drawn at a particular shade of grey.

The general point here is that the law surrounding trespass and rights of way is ancient and obscure. The trespasses involved are also often very trivial and thus exceedingly unlikely to be escalated to a level where they bring about a binding legal precedent. For all the "trespassers will be prosecuted" signs it is not normally a criminal offence and passengers have never been commonly sued for damages due to simple trespass. These are trifling matters and the law is not concerned with trifles.

Opinions differ as to whether or not it is a trespass to push or carry a bike along a footpath. We're unlikely to get a definitive answer anytime soon. Regardless, I am quite confident that it is sufficiently abnormal to de-rail any attempt to claim a right to cycle based upon that usage by cyclists. If the OP has now established the important matter that there is no legal prohibition of cycling, they can probably go ahead, do whatever they feel is best and dismiss the issue of whether pushing a bike is a trespass as a technicality only of interest to rights of way bores :wink:
User avatar
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1514
Joined: 14 Dec 2006, 8:27pm
Location: Lancing, West Sussex
Contact:

Re: Pushing a bike on a footpath.

Post by admin »

Another aspect is that the courts would typically award damages at a level to compensate for the damage caused by the trespasser (perhaps plus costs?). So if you trespassed and disrupted a shooting party with people paying thousands to take part, the damages could be very high, but wheeling a bike such that it made a light impression in some mud might not result in a very large damages award.

The law works by trying to write down what is illegal, but it's impossible to write everything down in an completely unambiguous way. Thus the final ultimate decision about what is legal or not is made by the courts. The courts will try to interpret what the written law is trying to say, what previous related cases have decided, and how these fit the situation leading to the court case. They will often make desisions based on what a hypothetical "reasonable man" would think or do.

A person wheeling a bicycle down any given footpath on private land (assuming no local byelaw is in place) cannot know for certain whether they are trespassing or not without asking a court (or by finding a previous court decision concerning an identical situation).

So I think that wheeling a bicycle along a public footpath in a considerate and sensible manner might well be considered quite legal, and not a trespass, but a court. However if the landowner has repeatedly asked you not to take a bike with you along the footpath, then you might be trespassing: if the landowner sued you for trespass then the court would look at how reasonable your case was, and how reasonable their case was, before deciding.

We probably won't ever find out, because it's so unlikely a landowner would go to the trouble of persuing a person walking with a bicycle for trespass.
Post Reply