*UPDATE: Longleat Estate provided a statement (below) to road.cc on 21/03/2022 commenting on the incident and outlining the Estate’s cycling policy*
Longleat welcomes cyclists who want to use the official National Cycle Network routes across the estate. The multiple routes allow users incredible free access to designated private roads, providing unique views of the landscaped grounds and estate countryside.
Whilst we are happy to continue to allow this access, we have taken the decision to restrict cyclists in areas of the park which sit outside of this, including the front of Longleat House. These areas are designated for ticket holders and emergency vehicles only. This is a decision which was taken after careful consideration and review, after a number incidents over the past few years. We therefore have decided to have a consistent approach when it comes to all cyclists.
We understand the vast majority of cyclists respect the estate, however for the safety and enjoyment of staff and guests who have purchased tickets to see the attractions, we have sadly had to limit access only to the agreed National Cycle Network Routes.
A road.cc reader got in touch to share their experience of over-zealous security at Longleat stately home, complaining of an “outdated and frankly pathetic attitude” towards cyclists.
Two National Cycle Routes (24 and 25) pass through Longleat, access Sustrans has previously successfully fought to uphold following a short-lived ban in 2012.
road.cc reader Matt accused staff of treating him with no respect after he was told to move on from the Lion statue, at the front of the mansion dating back to the 16th century, despite obeying ‘no cycling’ signs by wheeling his bike.
As he left, the rider was approached by a “huge security vehicle” with a security guard responding to a report of a cyclist in front of the mansion.
“I explained that I had just wanted to take a photo of the lion, so I had got off my bike and pushed. Then came the killer line: ‘You have a cycle. Therefore you are a cyclist. And cyclists aren’t allowed in there.’
“I pointed out to him that as I wasn’t on the bike I was technically (and legally) a pedestrian, and the poor man looked a bit embarrassed about the whole thing. I completely understand that Longleat is private property and that cyclists are only allowed there by permission, but this outdated and frankly pathetic attitude speaks volumes about the people who own and run the place.”
Matt’s story was backed up by a road.cc contributor who was moved on from the front of the house (but not before snapping the picture above next to the lion statue) while thinking about using the cafe for coffee, another part of the Estate cyclists are seemingly unwelcome.
Having contacted Longleat Estate for comment, road.cc received the following statement outlining the Estate’s cycling policy.
Matt added that prior to his security encounter he was enjoying the “truly breathtaking” scenery, and suggested that if the Estate took a more welcoming approach to cyclists they could “probably make a fortune”.
“If they were more welcoming to cyclists and opened a cycling-friendly cafe they could probably make a fortune,” he said. “It’s a wonderful place to ride through. If you and your family are staying at Center Parcs and rediscovering or indulging the joy of cycling, please think carefully about whether you want to visit Longleat.
“Take your kids for a bike ride around Shearwater instead; it’s just as nice and you won’t be funding aggressive, regressive hatred towards a group of people who are simply doing something they love.”
road.cc has contacted Longleat for a comment, and will update this story when we have it.
In 2012, Longleat briefly barred cyclists from two Sustrans routes which pass through the estate home to the UK’s oldest safari park.
Staff at the Estate removed blue signs that pointed out certain ‘private’ roads as part of the National Cycle Network (NCN) Routes 24 and 25.
A few days later, Longleat Estate confirmed that cyclists would continue to be allowed to use sections of National Cycle Route 24 and 25, with signage to be reinstated.
Last May, Bolton Abbey in North Yorkshire was at the heart of an access row after the Duke of Devonshire employed security guards to keep cyclists off his estate.
The Abbey then denied using security guards to keep pesky cyclists off their property, saying restrictions were due to coronavirus, before a guard told a cyclist he was in fact there to stop people riding bikes through the estate.
One rider reported the “chap would be more suitable at a nightclub on a Friday night.”
98 thoughts on “No bikes allowed: Longleat confirms restricted access for cyclists after security unhappy with rider near stately home”
Cyclist being an arse tbh.
Non-story of Cyclist being an arse tbh.
Longleat charges for admission (its a stately home & safari park) – presumably he didnt pay.
Having permission to cross someones land doesnt mean you get to take a tour of it FFS.
Yikes, what crawled up your
Speaking of arses, what crawled up yours?
Since I just misread your
Since I just misread your user name as Boopoop I’m going to suggest you.
The lion statue is literally
The lion statue is literally fifty yards off NCN 25, is there really any harm in the guy nipping a short distance off the road, getting a snap and going away again? Not as if that’s something people pay for. If he’d gone for a jolly through all the commercial parts of the estate, fine, throw him off, this seems a ridiculously heavy-handed way to behave and one specifically aimed at cyclists (as the article and links note, the estate has form with anti-cyclist hostility).
Savage burn, misery guts
Savage burn, misery guts
Bit OTT there – hardly taking
Bit OTT there – hardly taking ‘a tour’. Route 24 goes right past the front of the house… a very slight detour off it to reach the lion. You’re not going to take your bike into the safari park, or the adventure playground, or gardens…
Give that as the reason then,
Give that as the reason then, not an anti-cyclist diatribe (Longleat security’s, not yours).
Remind me never to go on one
Remind me never to go on one of your ‘tours’, doesn’t sound like they’d be that extensive
On balance I say I’m with you
On balance I say I’m with you.
I grew up on a small holding with a bridleway running through it. For some reason, the fact that the path ran through our land, some people thought that gave them the right to wander across all our land, and even be so bold (on one occasion) to have a picnic in our front yard.
It was ‘only a few metres off the path’, but it was also our private property.
Taking the ‘its just off the path’ mentality further, less than 100m off the path, you could be in through the front door and having a sit down on a futon, but I’m sure there are not many that would think that OK.
Reminds me of the White Stripes song, Take Take Take
But presumably you didn’t let
But presumably you didn’t let 500,000 paying visitors wander over your small holding every year, if you had any claims that your privacy was being invaded might have seemed slightly ridiculous?
So your argument is basically
So your argument is basically akin to… because a hotel has 1,000’s of paying visitors, its a bit rich of the hotel to expect a non-guest in the hotel bar to buy a drink?
Or, because a prostitute sleeps with 100’s of men a year, its a bit rich that she moans about someone randomly groping her bosom?
Just because cyclists have a right to use a road for free, it does not automatically give them right to take advantages of privileges that normally cost money to access.
Jimmy Ray Will wrote:
Yes, that is exactly like my argument. Going a little way off a road for a quick snap of a statue is exactly like assaulting a prostitute. EXACTLY.
Yeah I know, I’m taking the
Yeah I know, I’m taking the premise of your argument and applying it to a different scenario in order to test that argument.
You argue that it’s ridiculous for someone to have an issue with people accessing their private property for free because that someone is quite happy to sell access to that private property.
All I’ve done here is swap a person’s property with a person’s body. I appreciate that its a crass comparison, but as you’ve quite rightly called out, this behaviour is assault. Similarly, accessing someone’s private property without due cause or permission is trespassing.
Jimmy Ray Will wrote:
No, I was arguing that it was a ridiculous comparison to make between your family smallholding and a massive estate which is open to the public for a fee. You really can’t see the difference? If you want to trade analogies, that’s like saying that somebody doing 72 mph on the M1 is just as bad as someone doing 72 mph down a residential street.
Jimmy Ray Will wrote:
I have no skin in this argument … both sides seem to be coming across as unnecessarily arsey, to be honest but in the interests of balance, I have been in plenty of hotel bars as a non-guest that didn’t require me to buy a drink.
There is one in a town near my home that happily lets me use the toilet and fill my bidon when out on ride without expecting me to pay anything for anything (although I do usually put something in their charity collection box).
It private property so yes he
It private property so yes he should not be allowed I don’t know this place but a private residence is still someone house no matter how big it is If it was a public place then yes ride your bike take a photo
You seem to have missed the
You seem to have missed the point that Matt wasn’t riding his bike, he had got off and pushed through an area where pedestrians are permitted but was told he was counted as a cyclist even though he wasn’t riding a bike.
But if you can pay a sum to
But if you can pay a sum to visit the place then it is not private. Seems like they want to have their cake and eat it. If it is private, close the house to visitors, shut the gardens and close down the safari park.
Point me to the place in the
Point me to the place in the article where it says he paid the entrance fee.
He was trespassing without permission – the fact he had a bike with him was irrelevant.
Secret_squirrel wrote:
Then why did the guard say “You have a cycle. Therefore you are a cyclist. And cyclists aren’t allowed in there.”
Because Security guards
Because Security guards probably on minimum wage aren’t paid for their Policy explanation skills?
Having a bike made it highly likely he wasnt a fee paying member of the public, probably just like rocking up in a car would have done. (See also it possible not even being open).
Just because he had a bike doesnt mean it was necessarily about cycling. That’s our persecution complex at work.
Secret_squirrel wrote:
“You have a cycle. Therefore you are a cyclist. And cyclists aren’t allowed in there” sounds a little bit like it’s about cycling to me and that even if he had paid for a ticket he would still have been in trouble specifically for having a bike with him.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Possibly, but given the fact that Longleat is only open 3 days a week just now there is also a possibility that the ticket question is moot. Why should the security guard ask if a cyclist has a ticket on a day when the estate is not open to the public?
Perhaps @Tass Whitby will confirm what day the photo was taken….. that would clear it up.
Three or four years ago…
Three or four years ago… part of my regular training route for the RAB. Don’t think it’s ever been closed when I’ve ridden through (and it is lovely to ride through).
If there are NCN’s going
If there are NCN’s going through it, then they aren’t trespassing, these are public routes. If there are no signs along these NCN’s telling cyclist’s the land either side is private/payable to go on, then you comment seems irrelevant to the story and all hearsay.
Just so we’re clear, the NCN
Just so we’re clear, the NCN routes go right in front of the house and the lion is just up the drive
you can see the lion on the
you can see the lion on the right of the house
Also, once you get there it’s
Also, once you get there it’s not obvious that access straight on to the house is restricted in any way
Which means that initially
Which means that initially the cyclist (or any pedestrian) was not trespassing, it only became trespass when they were asked to leave, assuming there were not clear demarcations of which roads and paths were private and public. For example, I quite often see “Please remain on the footpath” signs when out walking, and then the landowner has deliberately removed footpath signs, so it is impossible to be sure where the footpath lies. In one case locally, the actual right of way is blocked, there is a fenced off unlawful diversion and yet there is a sign demanding I stick to the path – so I walk through the flower bed (which actually had a footpath reinstated after a complaint a decade ago) after climbing the fence.
Are you sure about that?
Are you sure about that?
Looks pretty clearly marked to me. The gate and each one of those posts clearly mark the NCN’s. Feel free to circle around them on Streetview.
With a clearly marked No Entry to go straight forward.
The issue comes down to right
The issue comes down to right of way legislation. Private land owners are sometimes reluctant to perceive that a public footpath trump’s land ownership – to the extent that if a footpath is blocked you are entitled to stray from the footpath to circumvent the blockage, and you are allowed to remove the blockage,as examples.
In this case, if the site of the lion is not on the footpath, being pedestrian does not excuse the trespass and a pedestrian or cyclist is not entitled to take a photo away from the path, just because it is near the path.
If the lion is on a right of way, then you get into the law, which allows foot passage, but does not necessarily allow anything else apart from incidental things carried – there is a load of case law, but essentially it was accepted in court that a carried bike was the same as a backpack. However, things like sitting to have a picnic even on a footpath is not a right in law, it is a right of way – in other words a right of movement.
Bridleways are different, and in law a cycle has a right to use a bridleway.
IanMSpencer wrote:
That’s the thing here, isn’t it? Looking at Dave’s maps above, the lion is not on the NCN routes. Sure, it is near them, but it’s not on them or even directly adjacent to them.
So, assuming the cyclist did not pay to enter the estate but exercised right of passage along the NCN, it seems reasonable that they could be asked to move on if they went off-piste to take a photo.
And that would probably be the same if the NCN routes were replaced with public footpath and a hiker wandered off the footpath to take a photo with the lion.
That all being said, the security guard was being an @rse, and probably wrong, to blame it on ‘being a cyclist, innit’.
IMO.
Looking on an OS map, there
Looking on an OS map, there don’t appear to be any public rights of way – all access is permissive. The landowner would be legally entitled to close public access entirely.
However, the crux of the issue seems to be access being denied to people with bikes (not even riding them) when access to the same area would have been permitted for people without bikes.
I will admit I am not 100% clear on which bits of the estate access is permitted to without buying a ticket, and I note that the streetview imagery posted elsewhere in these comments is dated from 2011, when (as per the articles linked above) Longleat does appear to have reviewed their access policy in 2012 so signage/fencing etc may have changed (I note that access for ramblers appears to have been a contentious issue as well). Indeed, the lion isn’t even present in the streetview imagery.
Nonetheless, it certainly seems to have been an unnecessarily heavy handed response – the people clearly were permitted to cycle along the NCN route without buying a ticket; they went <100m off the NCN path down another tarmaced path; they obeyed the “No cycling” sign (which would appear to permit public access on foot given the situation); and they took a photo of a tourist attraction that is clearly visible from the NCN path and not (in any immediately obvious way) restricted to ticket holders.
OS maps seldom list cycle
OS maps seldom list cycle routes, but online the OS map service has a “national cycle” layer that can be imposed upon the map and sure enough it shows routes 25 and 24 crossing the estate.
the_mikey wrote:
I think you missed the point – being part of the National Cycle Network is not equivalent to being a Public Right of Way.
OnYerBike wrote:
So NCN routes are basically a recommendation for people without local knowledge (“We’d suggest you might prefer to go along this route, m’kay”) rather than an actual route like a road or a footpath?
biker phil wrote:
Absolutely 100% not true.
I rode into Preston City
I rode into Preston City centre a few years ago, to visit a shop in the St. Georges shopping centre. I obeyed the signs stating ‘No Cycling’, and pushed my bike through. A security guard stopped me and told me cycling wasn’t allowed in there. I pointed out I was pushing the bike and was therefore a pedestrian. He looked confused, pointed to the bike and told me I would have to leave it outside the shopping centre as bikes were not allowed. As it was a Colnago C60 I was understandibly not too thrilled at the prospect of locking it up with the beggars sat outside, so I left the centre, rode home and ordered what I wanted online, the family owned shop losing the sale sadly.
Crank v Brooks – The moment
Crank v Brooks – The moment you step off, you’re a pedestrian.
You are not required to carry the ‘cycle or any such nonsense you sometimes hear, either.
Are you on twitter as Heavy
Are you on twitter as Heavy Metal Handcyclist ?
That’s me, yes.
That’s me, yes.
Yeah that crap dont fly with
Yeah that crap dont fly with me – ive more than once picked up my bike and put it on my shoulder and gone “now what am i?” And when theres no answer walked off still toting bike on shoulder. I know everyone cant do this but if you can its worth it
You don’t even need to pick
You don’t even need to pick it up – the moment your feet are on the ground, you’re a pedestrian.
Crank vs Brooks, 1980.
The UK has so many amazing
The UK has so many amazing places to visit. I’ll go elsewhere.
Cyclists (who have not paid
Cyclists (who have not paid the estate entrance fee) would be required to remain on the public rights of way, so that deviating a short distance to the lion statue at the front of the house, is technically accessing private land without permission. However petty security staff enforcing this may seem, it is not surprising, or unexpected. The fact that a cyclist dismounts, to be a pedestrian, on said private property is actually irrelevant.
dassie wrote:
Well, it would be if it wasn’t for the fact that the security staff appear to have made it quite clear that he was being turfed specifically for being a cyclist.
My guess is that the vast
My guess is that the vast majority of, if not all, cyclists are simply using NCN routes, and have not paid for ‘full’ Longleat estate visitor access. So it’s likely, yes, that security are making an assumption ‘cyclist = non paying visitor’, but probably not far wrong in that assumption.
dassie wrote:
But it was the security guard that made being (or not being) a cyclist an issue. Had they said “Excuse me – have you paid for a ticket? No? Kindly hoppit back on to the right of way then.”, they would likely have just departed and there wouldn’t even have been a story here.
mdavidford wrote:
Should the security guard have asked if the cyclist had paid for a ticket on a day that the estate wasn’t open to the public? The picture of the cyclist with the Lion is entirely devoid of any other people in the background, so is it perhaps indicative that the estate was actually closed the day the cyclist visited.
TriTaxMan wrote:
No – in that case they should have said ”Ere! This ‘ere area is currently closed – kindly hoppit back on to the right of way!’
But again, bringing up whether or not they’re a cyclist was irrelevant, since anyone who’d been walking along the right of way and strayed off it would also have been in an area they shouldn’t have been in.
At the safari park end, the
At the safari park end, the staff don’t seem to have been given the ‘be officious to cyclists’ memo. No problem using the loos, and one chap happy to fill up my water bottle – though I didn’t see where he got the liquid from…
I’m erring towards the fact
I’m erring towards the fact that the cyclist is wrong with this one.
At the moment Longleat is only open to the public on weekends, and given the fact that the picture taken by the cyclist doesn’t show anyone else in the background, it seems from my perspective that they passed through the grounds on a day when the estate was closed.
It seems to me that the security guards were referring to the fact that they had gained access to the gardens by virtue of being a cyclist using the NCN routes, but veered off the permitted routes on a day when the estate was closed to visitors.
TriTaxMan wrote:
all sustrans routes are essentially shared use, so a pedestrian could have accessed the grounds by the same route, and would likely not have been challenged. Or the challenge should have been “the grounds are closed today, go back to the permitted path” with no mention of bikes
I took a ride through
I took a ride through Longleat a few years ago. I didn’t see any security guards but the fields were full of some scary looking sheep.
I don’t know how the security
I don’t know how the security guard could have got confused about you being a cyclist, with you stood over your bike in your bike gear having your photo taken in a place you shouldn’t be.
/SARCASM
Adam Sutton wrote:
Except that, legally, if you are not actually sitting on your bike and pedalling then you are a pedestrian. Case law applies.
1: That is not Matt in the
1: That is not Matt in the picture. He could have been wearing jeans, trainers and a coat for all we know.
2: If someone who is walking pushing a cycle a cyclist, is someone who is pushing a pram a Pramist?
/NOT SARCASM
Christ on a bike. Lighten up.
Christ on a bike. Lighten up.
Adam Sutton wrote:
You appear to be addressing yourself. You should, and stop trying to take over as the site’s resident anti-cyclist.
Adam Sutton wrote:
No, no, you want @chrisonatrike
Adam Sutton wrote:
What I love here is that you’ve come for a little trolling, failed to take the time to even read the article, got a little confused, went for a sarcastic comment, got shown up as being totally wrong, told others to lighten up.
Think you need to quit your membership of troll club based on this effort!
He wasn’t having his photo
He wasn’t having his photo taken with it, he was taking a photo of it. That picture is of another road.cc reader and, if I’m not mistaken, a lady.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Presumably there visiting the Marquess and Marchioness of Bath?
There is a similar situation
There is a similar situation at Woburn Safari Park, albeit a bonafide public right of way that goes past some of the animal enclosures. The estate have been trying to get the path re-routed away from the park after it became popular during lockdowns. I’m not aware of any issues with people straying from the path though, just that people were using it a lot.
The path at Longleat seems to be only a permissive arrangement negotiated by Sustrans that can be cancelled by the estate with a months notice. I think Sustrans ought to put a sign up at the begining of this path outlining it’s permissive status (by kind agreement of the landowner, as they usually say) and asking users to not stray from the route. Also could do with improving the route marking.
You don’t have to stray from the path to get a photo of Woburn’s lion, but it’s not as good as Longleat’s!
Frankfurt Zoo is even odder.
Frankfurt Zoo is even odder. It is a paying attraction but has public walkways right through all the enclosures. Nobody made a fuss of us getting all excited looking at the animals up close for free.
IanMSpencer wrote:
Copenhagen Zoo borders onto Frederiksberg Gardens and you can freely watch the elephants from there by design:
Not quite such largesse in
Not quite such largesse in London but when cycling round Regent’s Park I always stop for a look at the giraffes, which can be seen from the road – took this in summer 2020 but can still be seen most days unless it’s really cold when they sensibly stay indoors.
I’m sure whichever dim and
I’m sure whichever dim and distant lord first enclosed and declared Longleat private property worked hard and saved up for the privilege. He certainly wasn’t given it for sucking up to the next lord up the chain, or chopping some other lord’s head off. And he certainly deserved it more than the indentured servants he had working the land for a pittance.
‘The first person who, having
‘The first person who, having enclosed a plot of land, took it into his head to say this is mine and found people simple enough to believe him, was the true founder of civil society. What crimes, wars, murders, what miseries and horrors would the human race have been spared, had someone pulled up the stakes or filled in the ditch and cried out to his fellow men: “Do not listen to this imposter. You are lost if you forget that the fruits of the earth belong to all and the earth to no one!”’ – Rousseau
As for Longleat, it was nicked off the church by Henry VIII and given to a nephew of Jane Seymour, who flogged it to an ancestor of the Marquess of Bath for £53.
‘…this is mine and found
‘…this is mine and found people simple enough to believe him,.. ‘
For ‘simple’ read ‘scared’ in most cases.
The poor had no lawyers…
The poor had no lawyers… (can’t find the whole quote but it and a couple of other goodies are found in the excellent – if sometimes papery – The Poor Had No Lawyers dealing with Scottish land ownership. Spoiler – the rich and powerful just take stuff they want and since they’re normally in control of the law “but it’s illegal!” generally won’t help you).
In Scottish law if there is a
In Scottish law if there is a dispute over land ownership that isnt satisfactorily proven the court awards the land to the majority land owner in the area on the basis that it is most likely to be theirs. Talk about dice loaded against the poor.
On a more positive note for
On a more positive note for Scottish Law, the ‘Right to Roam’ introduced in 2005 means that we can access the ‘land’ regardless of who owns it.
Related comment; my
Related comment; my government workplace has a pedestrian entry that pedestrians walking with a bicycle are not allowed to use; this rule was put in place by the local manager who thinks bikes are toys for children and makes life as difficult as possible for any employee that commutes to work by bike.
Crank v Brooks – The moment
Crank v Brooks – The moment you step off the ‘cycle, you’re a pedestrian and can go anywhere a pedestrian can.
It’s a workplace so it will
It’s a workplace so it will be private property (even if owned by the Government) and so they would be within their rights to say you can’t bring in a bike through certain entrances – being a pedestrian in the eyes of the law is moot. Just like you might not be allowed to bring a dog into a restaurant.
True, unless you can
True, unless you can demonstrate that the other entrance presents a danger, or disadvantage on the basis of disability (EA2010 S.20, S.21, S.149 if Government or acting as a public service).
I mean, it’s somewhat moot to me – I can and do just ignore cycling restrictions, but I’m a bit of an edge case.
There are circumstances in which you can bring a dog into a restaurant, and in which the proprietors do not get a say – in fact, if they then refuse to serve you, it’ll cost them a minimum of £1300 – but that is an edge case as well.
Crippledbiker wrote:
…and yet they always refuse my emotional support squirrels
Intentionally taking you far
Intentionally taking you far too seriously As A Bit;
That’s because Emotional Support animals have no bearing in law – they’re not considered to be service animals, so you’d need to evidence it as a breach on another basis.
But does Grog have to walk
But does Grog have to walk their bike through the motor vehicle entrance instead? I wonder what the health & safety risk assessment made of that…
If vehicles are allowed to
If vehicles are allowed to drive through, there’s no requirement to walk a bike – just cycle through.
Also, safer.
To be clear, I’m not
To be clear, I’m not suggesting it’s a sensible policy, nor that there might not be other legal avenues to challenge the policy (such as H&S and/or Equalities Act, as have already been mentioned). My point was merely that Crank v Brooks and the finding that a person pushing a bike is a pedestrian in the context of the Highways Act is not especially relevant.
I take your point – I’m being
I take your point – I’m being somewhat overly serious and pedantic.
It’s not just in the context of the Highways Act, mind, but in all matters – A PSPO forbidding cycling through a town centre, for example, cannot ban walking through with a cycle, because that isn’t cycling.
But again, I’m being pedantic.
Crippledbiker wrote:
Genuine question. If you are still on the saddle but feet on the ground, walking it forward, which do you get classed. For the record, if I need to walk it I normally get off.
In Crank vs Brooks, as I
In Crank vs Brooks, as I recall, the judge remarked that it was the fact that the defendant (complainant? Can’t remember) had the bike “in her hand” (odd phrase but one can see what they meant) classed her as a pedestrian and that had she had one foot on a pedal and been “scooting” judgement might have been different. In the light of that it seem fairly certain that sitting on the saddle and pushing with the feet would be seen as scooting – in fact given the determination of certain prosecutors to get cyclists wouldn’t be surprised if they found some unrepealed anti-dandy-horse legislation…
Your recollection is correct;
Your recollection is correct; You must be walking, not scooting, and I would agree with your inference – Stood over the frame could be argued to still be mounted.
I, of course, get to ignore all of this and just do basically whatever I like 😉
Im surprised Longleat
Im surprised Longleat dignified this non-story with a reply.
My question now is, are there
My question now is, are there pedestrian permissive ways through Longleat (what about right to roam?) and if not, if I have a puncture and am no longer a cyclist, do I have the right to my walk of shame having run out of patches?
IanMSpencer wrote:
I’ve had a quick look at the OS maps and no public rights of way exist through the park. No right-to-roam either, the nearest open access land is Cley Hill, just outside the park to the north eastern side.
You can walk the NCN route. To be fair to Longleat, it is good of them to allow permissive access through their estate and reasonable to ask people to stick to the route. I think they could improve the signage to make that clearer to users though.
I stand corrected it is about
I stand corrected it is about cyclists.
I mean it could be entirely feasible that a cyclist could be the holder of a Longleat annual ticket which would have meant they were entitled to be where they were as a paying ticket holder.
I suppose many are familiar
I suppose many are familiar with Longleat’s location, but despite living in West Berkshire for ten years, I had to Google it. For others who wish journalists still ticked off the 5Ws and How, it’s in Wiltshire, but just barely. Think Foome/Westbury (the Far West of Wiltshire)
Still not totally clear (well
Still not totally clear (well done for getting a response though): is it just non-paying cyclists who are banned, or would one not be allowed to ride, or even push, one’s bike around the grounds if one bought a ticket?
Indeed that is an ambiguous
Indeed that is an ambiguous answer that they have provided.
I would assume that they expect cyclists who have bought a ticket to lock up their bikes and walk…. but could be wrong.
Rendel Harris wrote:
I think you can take your bike into the grounds, the FAQ’s only forbid you from cycling through the safari drive, which I don’t think you can really argue with!
“Most vehicles are accepted for entry into our Safari Drive Through except for soft top cars, motorbikes and bicycles.”
They sound a lot more accommodating than Whipsnade Zoo, which despite being so large you can take your car in and drive about, they class bikes in the same list of banned items as weapons (see below).
They do allow kids to take a kick scooter. So when I had a broken toe, I got my son to push the scooter in through the main gate whilst I hobbled along behind him, then when we got round the corner, I grabbed it off him and zoomed off!
Just don’t go to Longleat. If
Just don’t go to Longleat. If they don’t want cyclists there that’s up to them. There are so many other amazing places in the UK to visit instead.
I’d be curious what incidents they’re referring to though.
OldRidgeback wrote:
Yes…I’m currently engaged in a months-long dialogue with a major central London development (ongoing so I won’t name them) that promised cycle through routes as a condition of planning permission but has for months had security guards trying to make cyclists dismount. When asked why, the management said there had been “a number of incidents.” When I asked how many, had anybody been hurt etc they said “We don’t keep records of that sort.” In my experience “incidents” often boil down to “someone complained about an allegedly dangerous cyclist and we took them at their word.”
“There’s been a number of
“There’s been a number of incidents”
“What incidents? How many?”
“We don’t keep records of that sort”
“Then how do you know you had any incidents?”
Similar in Windsor Great Park
Similar in Windsor Great Park. Since Covid they have banned bikes from many of the routes (even wide roads). You aren’t even allowed to push your bike! I was following one of Jack Thurston’s Lost Lane rides a couple of months ago, and had to detour on to a busy main road (with all the massive SUV’s that drive in that area) and miss another section out completley. Rules like this are utterly pointless, and just look vindictive..