Don't trust Harry or Chappers take the PPCC's own independent advice
No 1 Trespassers will be prosecuted...
Despite the theoretical possibility of being prosecuted for riding on a country
footpath there is often a misunderstanding as to what you might be charged with.
Most legislation relating to cycling on 'footpaths' actually relates to 'footways
set along side of the road'. Ie. it does not directly relate to country footpaths
where there is no road. (This dates back to the 1835 Highways Act).
The 'fixed penalty' notices brought in to deal with 'pavement cyclists' also
do NOT generally apply to off-road paths. The main exception to this is when
a local authority has passed a Traffic Regulation Order making cycling an offence.
(More on this later).
The Camden Cycling campaign site makes this point clear stating:
'Section 72 of the Highways Act 1835 provides that a person shall be guilty
of an offence if he : "shall wilfully ride upon any footpath or causeway
by the side of any road made or set apart for the use or accommodation of foot-passengers
or shall wilfully lead or drive any carriage of any description upon any such
footpath or causeway ". Section 85 of the Local Government Act 1888 extends
the definition of "carriage" to include "bicycles, tricycles,
velocipedes and other similar machines".
The object of Section 72 Highways Act 1835 was intended not to protect all footpaths,
but only footpaths or causeways by the side of a road.
When riding on the majority of rural public paths in the U.K. the most likely
offence that you may be committing is the civil wrong of trespass against the
landowner. One might think that you cannot be 'trespassing' per say if you are
on a footpath as you are using a public right of way. However, you may still
be guilty of a trespass against the landowner on the basis that your actions
caused some sort of damage or loss to the landowner who by law only has to allow
walkers access to that right of way. Despite this the offence of trespass is
still only a civil matter between you and the landowner and if the case were
to be taken to court the monetary value of that trespass is likely to be very
small.
It might be argued that no 'trespass' charge could be made regarding a loss
of privacy or similar as the path is open to the public in any case. In addition,
the cost of maintaining the path (including any bridges and the cutting back
of undergrowth) is the responsibility of the local authority rather than the
landowner. Ie. the law assumes that the surface of the path belongs to the local
highway authority. Consequently, one might well argue that and it is the local
highway authority who would have to take action against you, for any 'damage'
caused to the surface of the path on which you were riding, not the 'landowner'
of the field you are riding through.
(Of course, if you were riding away from any right of way a landowner would
be in a stronger position to claim for damages due to your trespass. However,
once again, the leaving of a few muddy wheel prints is unlikely to be considered
to have much monetary cost, though this might well rise rather quickly if you
damaged crops...).
The power of the laws relating to trespass are generally over stated with the
exception of trespass expressly in order to interfere with the legal activities
of a landowner or other party. For example, trespass in order to interfere with
a fox hunt may be dealt with under the Criminal Justice Act and is a criminal
offence.
The Ramblers' Association have the following to say on trespass:
'A landowner may use "reasonable force" to compel a trespasser to
leave, but not more than is reasonably necessary. Unless injury to the property
can be proven, a landowner could probably only recover nominal damages by suing
for trespass. But of course you might have to meet the landowner's legal costs.
Thus a notice saying "Trespassers will be Prosecuted", aimed for instance
at keeping you off a private drive, is usually meaningless. Criminal prosecution
could only arise if you trespass and damage property. However, under public
order law, trespassing with an intention to reside may be a criminal offence
under some circumstances. It is also a criminal offence to trespass on railway
land and sometimes on military training land.'
In general, if you are accused of 'trespassing' the seriousness of the trespass
would be taken into account if a landowner did go so far as to take you to court.
The seriousness of a trespass would take into factors such as any loss of amenity
to the landowner an any damage done. Of course, the only damage a MTB rider
is likely to do is to leave a few wheel marks somewhere. I have been told that
if you were to offer a landowner a suitable sum in compensation for the 'trespass'
and that sum were refused by the landowner a court would take that offer into
consideration when awarding against you for any trespass. If all you did were
to leave a few wheel marks reasonable damages might be so low as to make 10
or 20p a 'reasonable' offer and if the landowner refused this he would have
to justify why a higher sum was justified. In addition, the refusal of such
an offer would count against the landowner as all parties are supposed to make
all reasonable attempts to resolve a dispute before taking recourse to the law
in civil matters. In addition, the police are unlikely to take much interest
in a civil case of trespass.
Ok. I'll get of and walk...
A further aside to the law of 'trespass' is whether or not it is permissible
to push or carry a bicycle on a section of footpath. The Ramblers association
and others argue that as the law only permits a walker to have with them a 'natural
accompaniment' even pushing or carrying a cycle is prohibited as a bicycle is
not a 'natural accompaniment' of a pedestrian. However, a number of precedents
have been set that show that the law considers a cyclist who is walking or pushing
their machine is, to all legal intents and purposes, a pedestrian and has all
the rights of a pedestrian, and so can continue even if he or she does a have
cycle with them...
The following are taken from the Cyclists Touring Club's 'Off Road News, Issue
1'.
'In the case of Crank v Brooks 1980 a motorist was prosecuted for injuring a
cyclist pushing a cycle across a zebra crossing. In his judgement Lord Waller
said ‘... the fact that the injured party had a bicycle in her hand did
not mean that she was no longer a pedestrian”. This judgement was reinforced
by the Department of Transport in a letter written in 1994 in which they confirm
“....that a cyclist pushing a bicycle on a pedestrian facility is regarded
as a pedestrian”. A footpath is a pedestrian facility in the same way
as a zebra crossing or footway, so the law can reasonably be assumed not to
differentiate between rural and urban use. The latest highway code also illustrates
a NO ENTRY sign with the words “no vehicles except cycles being pushed”.
The bicycle is defined in law as a vehicle, but here, the DTLR is clearly stating
that a bicycle while being pushed loses its vehicular status.'
The law, as is frequently the case, is ambiguous on this point (and the ambiguity
of the law would often seem to be intentional, so allowing judges to exercise
their discretion). As far as I am aware the 'natural accompaniment' clause has
not actually being tested by case law with reference to a cyclists carrying
or pushing a cycle on a country path. However, this issue is probably little
more than an aside given that cyclists, after all, want to ride when they can...
Source
http://www.thebikezone.org.uk/thebikezone/campaigning/offroad/offroadlaw.html