What All Mountain Bikers Should Know

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

rudis_dad

Member
Location
Burnley, Lancs
Mods - Any chance of a sticky on this one please??

In the thirty years or more that I have been riding bicycles seriously, both on and off road, it is gratifying to see that far from being a “fad” as was expected, mountain biking has grown into a fully-fledged and, in most cases, generally accepted and legitimate outdoor activity.

However, with the rise in popularity of purpose-built trail centres, a worrying diversity has come about amongst those who participate. The sanitised, cotton-wool wrapped world of the trail centre is leading to a tendency amongst us to ignore, either wilfully or otherwise, the rights and wrongs of where we can ride legitimately away from such trails.

Twenty or more years ago, trail centres were unheard of. Mountain bikers and “rough stuff” riders had to learn where they could ride without fear of persecution or causing conflict with other users. This situation still applies, yet it seems that an ever-increasing number of us are ignorant of the facts; alarmingly, it seems that the number of individuals who seem to think that they can ride where and when they like at the expense of other people is also growing.

So, what are the facts of where we can and cannot ride legitimately, away from dedicated trail centres or cycle routes?

PLEASE NOTE – The following only applies in England and Wales. The laws governing Scotland and Northern Ireland are different.

Public Highways
Or the road to use the vernacular. All public highways (except those designated as motorways) can be used by pedal cycles, subject to the prevailing traffic regulations.

Pavements or Footways
A pavement or footway here is defined as any way directly adjoining a public highway. It is illegal for any cyclist to ride on a pavement or footway, except where such is designated as “shared use” or a cycle path. Cycling on a pavement is a criminal offence and can result in arrest, a formal caution, a fine or even imprisonment. It is legal to dismount and to push a pedal cycle along a pavement.

A pavement or footway MUST NOT be confused with a public footpath; this is a completely different entity as we shall see.

Public Rights of Way
Public Rights of Way (PRoWs) are those pathways, tracks, trails or means of access which are protected in law and allow the general public (i.e. you and I) to cross and re-cross privately owned land without let or hindrance.

PRoWs can roughly be divided into three groups – public byways; public bridleways; and public footpaths.

The most popular source of information as to the route taken by a PRoW is the good old Ordnance Survey map. I suggest that you invest in the OS Landranger or Explorer map for your area, and learn where the PRoWs run and how to identify them.

However, OS maps are NOT a reliable source of information as to the status of a PRoW - for example, whether a public footpath is actually that, or whether it has been upgraded, moved or closed. The only way to correctly determine the status is to refer to the definitive maps held by the local authority for the area. Remember that a track or path on the ground is not evidence of a right of way – just because a path is there doesn’t mean that you can use it. Neither is a right of way on the map evidence that one exists. This is particularly pertinent where a landowner may tolerate members of the public using their land for recreational purposes without any right of way being extant. I find it irritating, although not a little amusing, when people get all huffy because “their trail” has been closed/blocked off/bulldozed when they had no right to be there in the first place!

A Public Byway is generally open to all traffic, regardless of its surface or its route. This means that it can be used by pedestrians, cyclists, horses, horse-drawn vehicles and motor traffic. However, many byways are subject to a Traffic Restriction Orders (TRO) which prohibits the use of motor vehicles. These are referred to as Restricted Byways. TROs may be permanent or temporary. A good example of this is Mastiles Lane, between Malham and Kilnsey in the Yorkshire Dales, which was famously one of the first byways subject to a TRO to allow the surface to recover after years of use by off-roaders and trailer-riders.

A Public Bridleway is open to pedestrians, equestrians, horse-drawn vehicles and cyclists. Motor traffic is not allowed on a public bridleway under any circumstances.

Public Footpaths are a bone of contention. There is no statement in English law which specifically prohibits the use of a bicycle on a public footpath. However, if you do so you are open to a charge of trespass. Herein lies the problem.

Trespass is a civil, not criminal, offence. You cannot be arrested for, nor charged with trespass, by the authorities (significantly, signs reading “Trespassers will be Prosecuted” are completely spurious, since one cannot be prosecuted for a civil offence – the correct wording should be “Trespassers may be subject to legal proceedings”).

In order to bring a case of trespass, the landowner has to show that criminal damage (a criminal offence, as its title would suggest) has been caused. Very few cases of trespass have been brought against pedal cyclists, and all have been rejected due to lack of evidence.

Should you ride on public footpaths? Probably not, although there are possible exceptions, such as genuine emergencies. I would suggest that ignorance is not a viable defence. Personally, I avoid public footpaths – using them only creates tensions.

Etiquette and Other Notes
There are certain other rules and points of etiquette that you should observe when using PRoWs.

No stopping! Strictly speaking, once you are on a PRoW you are not allowed to stop! That said, certain logical exceptions are made, such as opening and closing gates, mending a puncture, or stopping for refreshment.

You are legally entitled to attempt to remove any obstruction with resources at your immediate disposal. For example, if a branch has fallen off a tree and is blocking your way, if you can move it there and then you can do so. You cannot, however, return later in the day with a chainsaw and cut it up!

There is a pecking order on PRoWs. Everyone must give way to pedestrians, and cyclists must also give way to horses. Motor vehicles must give way to everyone else.

Where there is sufficient width, you should ride on the left, and overtake on the right. You are still subject to traffic regulations even if you are not on a public highway – you must give the proper signals and use lights after dark.

If you are approaching anyone from behind, it is simple common courtesy to warn them of your approach. This gives them time to move to one side and get children/dogs/horses/old people under control. You should warn equestrians far earlier than pedestrians, and be prepared to stop if necessary. A tonne or more of out-of-control horse is a frightening thing to behold, let alone try to bring under control.

NEVER assume that other trail users have heard your approach – I can guarantee that they will not have. Inattention, headphones and wind noise can all cancel out audible signs of your approach, no matter how loud you think that your freehub is.

Always pass with lots of smiles, a friendly “thank you”, “good morning/afternoon”, or even stop for a chat if you feel like it. Simple yet effective, even if you get no response.

You will always meet one smart-mouth who will tell you that you should be carrying a bell. This is nonsense. There is no legal requirement for a bicycle to be fitted with a bell, horn, or other audible warning device when in use. The only legal requirement is that a complete bicycle must be sold with one. I find that vocal chords, a big mouth and a set of well-developed lungs are as effective as anything. Plus they don’t rattle and ping annoyingly out on the trail.

Access Land
Some land is now classified as Access Land. This is usually (but by no means always) large open areas of upland which are uncultivated or not used for farming. A good example is land owned by some utility companies and some areas of National Trust land.

Access Land is the nearest that we come in England and Wales to having a “right to roam”. This means effectively that you can go freely anywhere on this land within certain provisions (i.e. dogs on leads, don’t disturb wildlife, etc.).

Sadly at present, Access Land is only available to pedestrians – no-one else has any right to use access land.

All access land is clearly marked on newer OS maps, but again you should check with the landowner/local authority if you are in any doubt.

In Summary
The above guidelines have stood me in good stead during 25 years or more of mountain biking. In that time I can count the number of times that I have come into conflict with landowners or other trail users on the fingers of one hand.

I would humbly suggest that we all adopt a similar approach.
 

GrumpyGregry

Here for rides.
I would humbly suggest that we all adopt a similar approach.
I would humbly suggest that your root cause analysis is deficient and your conclusion defective as a result. I'd, furthermore, and less humbly, suggest that your humble suggestion, like most, will most like be ignored. This for two reasons. The ignorant ignore things and are named so for a reason, and the vast majority of folk already comply the vast majority of the time.

Me? I'll carry on riding my bikes according to my own lights thanks. Mostly legally, most of the time. But my safety and, on rare occasion convenience, trumps all unless real harm will arise.

For instance locally we have a number of PRoWs bi-sected by major roads (A264 and A24 two immediate examples) that did not exist at the time the PRoW was established. Due to sleight of hand and chicanery in many instances the ancient bridleway that deposits you besides, say, the south bound carriageway of the shiny relative new NSL A24 DC continues on the other side of the north-bound carriageway as a public footpath which in turn links with a nice little country lane. Incoherent and illogical. Riding the footpath may be de jure illegal but is de facto fine. You will rarely, if ever, meet a walker on it and your tyre tracks fail the test of criminal damage and the land owner is the highways authority or some other completely uninterested party.
 
OP
OP
rudis_dad

rudis_dad

Member
Location
Burnley, Lancs
Wow. Somebody got out of bed the wrong side this morning. And swallowed a dictionary for breakfast.

At no point did I claim that my summary was infallible. What I will claim is that these are the rules; there will always be exceptions to the rule, as your case proves. But that said if the bridleway shares the same route as the footway, then you are on a PRoW which can legitimately be used by cycles. Sadly, it's holier-than-thou attitudes that work against our common cause. One set of rules for the rich and one for the poor, and all that malarkey.

Incoherent and illogical though? I'd dispute that. Maybe they have different meanings in West Sussex from their meanings "oop North" where we all wear clogs and flat caps, breed whippets and live on a diet of Grimshaws Tawny Mild, tripe and babies.
 
D

Deleted member 23692

Guest
Nicely put, although your section on byways needs expanding a bit. Restricted Byways are a classification in their own right, and are relatively new status predominantly resulting from reclassification of 'Roads Used as Public Paths' (RUPPS) - those with demonstrable mechanically propelled vehicular rights got upgraded to BOATS. Whilst others got downgraded to BW, and those in the middle grey areas got turned to RB's. BOATS with TRO's in place are still technically BOATS.. but with restrictions. RBs can be created in their own right ;)

There is only one legally correct definitive map per highway area - and that is held/maintained by the highway authority. Anything held by district/parish councils etc are copies and have no legal status. Some districts council may have claimed rights and maintain the PRoW's in their area but normally the legal definitive map work remains with the Highway Authority. National Parks fall between the two camps normally.

Certain access land may have 'Higher Rights' (CRoW 2000 S16) which are pre existing access rights over and above those provided by the 2000 act. However very few do involve cycling.

As for riding where there is no right to do so. Two schools of thought exist. One being is that if you can do so without stealth or malice and the landowner makes no effort to stop you, then it can be seen as presumed dedication and you're effectively building up a case for it to be claimed as a PRoW in the future.. there's a 2026 deadline for this though. The other being that you are going to mightily piss off the landowner, and that just makes if harder (for people like me) to get improvement work to other PRoWs on their land agreed, because you're selfishly giving public access a bad name.
 

lukesdad

Guest
The definitve map for rights of way is not held by the highway authority. It is held by the County Council and can be viewed by appointment with the relevent officer at your county council.
 
D

Deleted member 23692

Guest
County Councils (and unitary authorities) are highway authorities :smile:
 

GrumpyGregry

Here for rides.
Wow. Somebody got out of bed the wrong side this morning. And swallowed a dictionary for breakfast.

At no point did I claim that my summary was infallible. What I will claim is that these are the rules; there will always be exceptions to the rule, as your case proves. But that said if the bridleway shares the same route as the footway, then you are on a PRoW which can legitimately be used by cycles. Sadly, it's holier-than-thou attitudes that work against our common cause. One set of rules for the rich and one for the poor, and all that malarkey.

Incoherent and illogical though? I'd dispute that. Maybe they have different meanings in West Sussex from their meanings "oop North" where we all wear clogs and flat caps, breed whippets and live on a diet of Grimshaws Tawny Mild, tripe and babies.
Someone has clearly nipped your sac off road and you post a thread entitled
What All Mountain Bikers Should Know

that starts off drawing all sorts of incorrect conclusions which seem based on your own prejudices around trail centres and the people that ride in them. You use this pompous pre-amble as justification to then lecture on the subject of rights of way which has been done to death 1000's of times in 1000's of places. And then gripe about my response.

The network of PRoW's in these parts is incoherent and illogical as my example of the severed route demonstrates. Perhaps oop north, and frankly Lancashire is by my definition and heritage merely the North Midlands, your network is all neat and Bristol fashion. But round here and in the parts of God's own country that I've ridden in, it ain't and that's because the network and the laws around it are a product of a class driven legal and political system which seeks to control access to land. PRoW's are the living embodiment of 'them and us', and should be ignored and replaced by system of "roam where you will but leave no trace and do no harm" imo.

People ride their bikes off road where, and how, they like and if they do that illegally, under criminal or civil law, that is between them and the relevant authorities and frankly none of your or my business. Citing some non-existant common cause or appealing to the social mores of yesteryear or the sweat of our forefathers is a waste of keystrokes.

But other than that we are in complete agreement.:whistle:
 

02GF74

Über Member
3eec829b.gif
 
I dunno. I fall somewhere between Greg and Rudi, not literally I'll have you know. Definitely more mtn bikers on the local NT access land but most are sensible and are either night birds or early birds. I know this because I walk the dog up there, not under close control as the sign next to the no bikes says. I may or may not have ridden my bike there :whistle:
 

GrumpyGregry

Here for rides.
I dunno. I fall somewhere between Greg and Rudi, not literally I'll have you know. Definitely more mtn bikers on the local NT access land but most are sensible and are either night birds or early birds. I know this because I walk the dog up there, not under close control as the sign next to the no bikes says. I may or may not have ridden my bike there :whistle:
"Bladdy dog walkers. No respect. Why can't they keep em on a lead. When I were a boy this was all fields, et cetera, et cetera":boxing:
 
"Bladdy dog walkers. No respect. Why can't they keep em on a lead. When I were a boy this was all fields, et cetera, et cetera":boxing:
s'allright, my conscience has adapted to being a double law breaker.

In my defence, I did have to pull the ivy off the sign to see what it said.
 

bianchi1

Guru
Location
malverns
Someone has clearly nipped your sac off road and you post a thread entitled
What All Mountain Bikers Should Know

that starts off drawing all sorts of incorrect conclusions which seem based on your own prejudices around trail centres and the people that ride in them. You use this pompous pre-amble as justification to then lecture on the subject of rights of way which has been done to death 1000's of times in 1000's of places. And then gripe about my response.

The network of PRoW's in these parts is incoherent and illogical as my example of the severed route demonstrates. Perhaps oop north, and frankly Lancashire is by my definition and heritage merely the North Midlands, your network is all neat and Bristol fashion. But round here and in the parts of God's own country that I've ridden in, it ain't and that's because the network and the laws around it are a product of a class driven legal and political system which seeks to control access to land. PRoW's are the living embodiment of 'them and us', and should be ignored and replaced by system of "roam where you will but leave no trace and do no harm" imo.

People ride their bikes off road where, and how, they like and if they do that illegally, under criminal or civil law, that is between them and the relevant authorities and frankly none of your or my business. Citing some non-existant common cause or appealing to the social mores of yesteryear or the sweat of our forefathers is a waste of keystrokes.

But other than that we are in complete agreement.:whistle:

Isnt the point that while everyone is able to "ride their bikes off road where, and how, they like", it is not a bad idea to know (roughly) the law so that you can make an informed decision.

Around the Malvens (the mid midlands) there are a cunning mixture of paths, some of which we can use (legally) and some that you have break the law to use. You takes your choice, but its good to know the difference which is what the OP was trying to do.

Another good example is the poor Kenyan athletes over for the commonwealth games who had no idea that some UK roads are off limits to bikes...namely the M61 which they used for a couple of days!

The title of the thread is not "What All Mountain Bikers Should do" but "What All Mountain Bikers Should Know" which seems relatively non-contentious.
 

GrumpyGregry

Here for rides.
The title of the thread is not "What All Mountain Bikers Should do" but "What All Mountain Bikers Should Know" which seems relatively noncontinuous.
If the entirety of the OP was merely the title your analysis would be fine, but instead we have a sermon preaching. Urging a change in behaviour. People must comply with the law and thus avoid conflict and disrespecting the memories of those who went before us. And in a cycling forum not renowned as a hive of mtb related activity a sermon preached to the converted.

I've no problem with the factual content, just the preachy tone and the BS about trail centre users.
 
Top Bottom