Bridleway permission.

[GuyBoden]

Legally, I thought cycling was allowed on bridleways, but a local bridleway has been closed and a sign added warning cyclists not to use it. I presume this is due to the locals fearing the spread of covid-19 by cyclists. This is at Arley Hall Cheshire.

 

[matticus]

Do you mean a regular *public* bridleway, with a normal blue sign? (as opposed to a byway, B.o.a.t. , or private track that is opened at owner's discretion, etc ...)

 

[MontyVeda]

Ask your local council?

Looking on Google Maps (link)... I can't see any bridleways marked around Arley Hall, so it's likely not a bridleway (although Google isn't definitive)

 

[ColinJ]

Was the sign erected by the council or by the people who live there?

I ordered my MTB just before the 2001 foot and mouth epidemic. All the bridleways closed the day before I got it. It was about 6 months before I got to ride it offroad!

 

[NorthernDave]

Has it officially been closed or has a local busy body put up an official looking but meaningless notice?

Someone put laminated notices up on the towpath of the Leeds-Liverpool canal the other week with the West Yorkshire Police logo on telling cyclists to stay home - the police removed them.

Check with the PROW officer at the relevant council, but cycling is allowed on bridleways.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

Yep can only be closed by an order from the secretary of state. It is a public highway. It’d be like me closing a local road. You are perfectly entitled to ignore the signs.

 

[Deleted member 26715]

Identify it on https://www.rowmaps.com/ then screenshot the relevant map so we can see.

 

[Drago]

There are some local bridleways that cross Forestry Commission land near here. The FC have erected "no cycling" signs at either end where it enters and exits their land, but it has no legal status.

If it is a genuinely designated bridleway you can cycle upon it. As aforementioned, it can be closed by order of the SoS (who delegates these powers to local officers) but there is no legal mechanism to keep it open but restrict the type of traffic upon it - it's either open to all legal traffic, or it's closed. No shades of grey.

 

[ChrisEyles]

Public bridleways definitely OK to cycle on.

This is a really good resource for planning routes:

https://maps.the-hug.net/

Basically free OS maps - you can check if it's a Public Right of Way here (long dashed green line).

It's actually really difficult to legally close or redirect a public right of way (I've had to do it for tree safety reasons on land I manage once or twice, lots of forms and an obligation to fix the problem and re-open the right of way asap).

Unfortunately I wouldn't be surprised if local wallies have taken it on themselves to shut footpaths/bridleways. I recently had some locals being very vocally unhappy at me for cycling on a bridleway a couple of miles from my house... we had a good discussion about govt/police guidance and dynamic risk assessment which kind of took the wind out of their sails a bit, but there is a lot of knee-jerk disproportionate fear around at the moment as well as the sensible kind.

 

[Deleted member 23692]

There is no legal mechanism for public rights of way to be closed because of Corona virus. The only way to close a right of way is through a Temporary Traffic Regulation Order, and they cannot cannot cover human plagues, just for livestock as in F&M, swine, bird flu etc.

A good few folk are taking it upon themselves to illegal close routes through their property during the current pandemic. without authorisation. The problem is whether rights of way Officers are allowed out to investigate, as that journey would be classed as non-essential

 

[Deleted member 23692]

Yep can only be closed by an order from the secretary of state. It is a public highway. It’d be like me closing a local road. You are perfectly entitled to ignore the signs.

Not so. Any Highway Authority, or organisation with delegated powers from Highway Authorities (such as a National Park) can issue a TTRO. The only time the SoS is needed is for authority it to extend it past the initial 6 month period, and that is just a formality

 

[ChrisEyles]

^^^ I dunno, going a bit OT here, but having managed national parks and nature reserves around the South West IME it's very challenging indeed to obtain a long term re-direction, let alone closure of a PROW!

 

[Bonefish Blues]

Our community has done this on a public footpath. I think they are idiots and I'm embarassed to be associated with such behaviour.

(as in, crafted a 'Polite' notice...)

I understand someone was seen smiling on the path, or somesuch outrage

 

[Deleted member 23692]

^^^ I dunno, going a bit OT here, but having managed national parks and nature reserves around the South West IME it's very challenging indeed to obtain a long term re-direction, let alone closure of a PROW!

That depends on the reason - if it's a temp closure to enable works to be undertaken then it's a straightforward application form and payment. A permanent change (diversion, extinguishment etc) is far more involved, costly and time consuming, and keeps me busy and entertained.

Especially so as the average Joe's understanding of PRoW Legislation is usually incorrect

 

[PeteXXX]

This is a screeie from OS.
HTH