All went silent as the doors swung open and police officers walked into the Llanwrtyd Wells Memorial Hall in Mid Wales, armed with paperwork and stern faces. That was on the eve of an autumn 1994/5 Polaris Challenge, then a classic two-day MTB orienteering event. The hall was crammed with eager, pasta-munching mountain bikers, including past Tour de France riders, Olympians, and national champions. With that sudden eerie silence came the news that the event was likely to be ended before even the starting gate, due to issues with rights of way.
The problem? Racing bikes on bridleways isn’t permitted in England and Wales, even if Llanwrtyd could be considered one of mountain biking’s original homes in the country, and the Polaris was a long-standing classic event held at various locations nationwide without issue.
As heads dropped and questions were asked, someone spoke up, and the officers were called over to the side of the room. It turns out this guy knew his stuff on rights of way and cycling. I don’t know exactly what words passed between them, but the gist of it was that he clearly told the officers it was not a timed ‘race’ as such, therefore it was permissible. Somewhat stumped, the policemen walked away, and the event continued.
There was a lot of relief in that hall following this swift turnaround, and if it hadn’t been for his knowledge on the subject (this was in the early days of such events and of growing awareness of bikes on trails and of what was/was not possible or acceptable), we’d quite probably have all been heading home that night, or simply riding unofficially.
This legally legit ‘loophole’ is quite likely why marathon events and off-road ultras are able to survive here – and it provides a lifeline for their riders and the organisers alike. On the downside, as Matt mentioned in his Gravel National Champs story recently, this issue is also a major, and often expensive, hurdle for the progression of ‘big course’ gravel racing and MTB events anywhere south of the Scottish border (where trail access is a whole lot freer).
Paper maps to apps, natural trails to trail centres, rigid ride to rad rigs – the shifting landscape
If you’re relatively new to mountain biking or gravel riding, knowing your rights of way and the legal innards can be a daunting one to comprehend. Maybe the legalities even seem bonkers and antiquated to newer riders, even to experienced riders, and organisations such as Cycling UK and Sustrans do a great job in championing the need for a major update to the whole rights of way system from the cycling side (which is much needed).
As with Liam’s story on a recent report by Paul’s Cycles, that found 98% of mountain bikers surveyed admitted riding ‘illegal trails’ at some point, it probably runs throughout the rider age and experience groups.
Have awareness and respect of rights of way legalities faded over the years? Maybe, to an extent. I would guess there are still some out there who are either unaware of or unconcerned about a trail’s legal status, especially if it seems to make little sense on the ground or in quietly remote areas.
What makes riders ride, build, or seek out illegal trails? There’s a whole mix of things that potentially influence this, in addition to the aforementioned reasons. The demise of OS paper maps with clear ROW markings on (though Komoot recently added OS maps, and there is also the OS app – but small screens can be restricting on the move), trail centre riding backgrounds and then ‘going natural’, the lure of technical and gravity thrills, the increasing numbers of riders, and the massive evolution in bike tech and capability, teamed with the desire of riders to seek out trails and thrills to match them.
Whatever your style of riding may be, it’s prudent to know your rights. We all have a duty to be considerate and wise with our riding and route choices, and to leave no trace or reason out there for malice towards mountain bikers.
Who knows, you may be shredding down an illegal trail, bump into the wrong person, and find yourself up on a charge of ‘wanton and furious cycling.’ Yes, as nuts as that may sound, it is an offence, even if it’s very rarely raised. Though my mind boggles at the mere mention of this archaic-sounding Victorian law.
40 thoughts on “Every off-road rider should know the law around rights of way”
I was hoping to find a succinct list at the end of this article!
Bridleways – yes. Restricted byways – yes again, I think (?) Footpaths – no.
I’m usually on my own, in the South Downs, not racing or shredding or jumping off drops. Trying not to frighten walkers horse riders or wild life.
@Daveyraveygravey cycling UK have got a good guide with a list:
https://www.cyclinguk.org/article/cycling-guide/where-can-i-cycle-off-road
…and whilst it’s a ‘no’ for cycling on public footpaths, it’s not illegal like riding on a pavement alongside the road – so I do sometimes do it where it’s not going to upset anyone.
Great username. Why does it make me want to dance in front of pneumatic drills?
Where reasonable to do so and you have a reasonable belief that the classification is wrong you can fairly state that “I believe higher rights exist for this route and that I am entitled to exercise them until the matter is settled at a Public Inquiry”. If the land owner (or authorised representative) requests you leave you do so in the intended direction of travel politely.
Events are a different argument as someone is using the access rights on someone’s land to make a commercial profit and enters a grey area whether agreement of the landowner should be sought. Large events on the highway would normally be expected to get permission of the local authority.
I am yet to see a good argument for not riding footpaths if it doesn’t impact others. “It’s the law” isn’t a good argument if the law doesn’t make sense. I ride footpaths all the time near me other users don’t care as long as you’re respectful. Many are as wide as bridleways (and vice versa); it’s often entirely arbitrary.
My favourite local one is the one which has half a mile of double track bridleway then 100m of footpath at the end in order to get to the village. There is a sign on every gate saying “NO BIKES OR HORSES” with no good reason other than it’s what the map says. No one in the village seems to care other than the one person who keeps putting the homemade signs up.
@Slartibartfast If the sign-maker can be caught in the act then the council Environmental Health can get a report for littering/fly-tipping. Hours of endless fun for that person trying to explain away a conviction. Don’t report unless you’re prepared to go to court though.
Or remove the litter and put in the nearest bin with a sticker explaining how littering is a crime.
@Hamster now that is an exciting development. I do remove/amend signs but reporting them for flyposting is much more satisfying.
@Slartibartfast Mountain Biking and Trail-Building Destroy Wildlife Habitat!
There is no good reason to allow bicycles on any unpaved trail! All mountain bikers can walk (even if they are too lazy to do it). They have millions of miles of paved roads they can ride on. The wildlife don’t have that choice!
The major harm that mountain biking does is that it greatly extends the human footprint (distance that one can travel) in wildlife habitat. E-bikes multiply that footprint even more. Neither should be allowed on any unpaved trail. Wildlife, if they are to survive, MUST receive top priority!
What were you thinking??? Mountain biking and trail-building destroy wildlife habitat! Mountain biking is environmentally, socially, and medically destructive! There is no good reason to allow bicycles on any unpaved trail!
Bicycles should not be allowed in any natural area. They are inanimate objects and have no rights. There is also no right to mountain bike. That was settled in federal court in 1996: https://mjvande.info/mtb10.htm . It’s dishonest of mountain bikers to say that they don’t have access to trails closed to bikes. They have EXACTLY the same access as everyone else — ON FOOT! Why isn’t that good enough for mountain bikers? They are all capable of walking….
Why do mountain bikers always insist on creating illegal trails? It’s simple: they ride so fast that they see almost nothing of what they are passing. Therefore, they quickly get bored with any given trail and want another and another, endlessly! (In other words, mountain biking is inherently boring!)
A favorite myth of mountain bikers is that mountain biking is no more harmful to wildlife, people, and the environment than hiking, and that science supports that view. Of course, it’s not true. To settle the matter once and for all, I read all of the research they cited, and wrote a review of the research on mountain biking impacts (see https://mjvande.info/scb7.htm ). I found that of the seven studies they cited, (1) all were written by mountain bikers, and (2) in every case, the authors misinterpreted their own data, in order to come to the conclusion that they favored. They also studiously avoided mentioning another scientific study (Wisdom et al) which did not favor mountain biking, and came to the opposite conclusions.
Mountain bikers also love to build new trails – legally or illegally. Of course, trail-building destroys wildlife habitat – not just in the trail bed, but in a wide swath to both sides of the trail! E.g. grizzlies can hear a human from one mile away, and smell us from 5 miles away. Thus, a 10-mile trail represents 100 square miles of destroyed or degraded habitat, that animals are inhibited from using. Mountain biking, trail building, and trail maintenance all increase the number of people in the park, thereby preventing the animals’ full use of their habitat. See https://mjvande.info/scb9.htm for details.
Mountain biking accelerates erosion, creates V-shaped ruts, kills small animals and plants on and next to the trail, drives wildlife and other trail users out of the area, and, worst of all, teaches kids that the rough treatment of nature is okay (it’s NOT!). What’s good about THAT?
To see exactly what harm mountain biking does to the land, watch this 5-minute video: http://vimeo.com/48784297.
In addition to all of this, it is extremely dangerous: https://mjvande.info/mtb_dangerous.htm .
The latest craze among mountain bikers is the creation of “pump tracks” (bike parks). They are alleged to teach bicycling skills, but what they actually teach are “skills” (skidding, jumping (“getting air”), racing, etc.) that are appropriate nowhere! If you believe that these “skills” won’t be practiced throughout the rest of the park and in all other parks, I have a bridge I’d like to sell you! …
For more information: https://mjvande.info/mtbfaq.htm .
The common thread among those who want more recreation in our parks is total ignorance about and disinterest in the wildlife whose homes these parks are. Yes, if humans are the only beings that matter, it is simply a conflict among humans (but even then, allowing bikes on trails harms the MAJORITY of park users — hikers and equestrians — who can no longer safely and peacefully enjoy their parks).
The parks aren’t gymnasiums or racetracks or even human playgrounds. They are WILDLIFE HABITAT, which is precisely why they are attractive to humans. Activities such as mountain biking, that destroy habitat, violate the charter of the parks.
Even kayaking and rafting, which give humans access to the entirety of a water body, prevent the wildlife that live there from making full use of their habitat, and should not be allowed. Of course those who think that only humans matter won’t understand what I am talking about — an indication of the sad state of our culture and educational system.
Mike Vandeman, Ph.D.
Mountain biking does a lot less harm to nature than, er, paving trails.
Also, I’m pretty sure that “federal court” has no particular sway in the UK.
@mdavidford Faulty logic: paving trails is more harmful, so mountain biking is acceptable. BS. Mountain bikers are full of specious arguments for doing whatever the heck they want.
@mdavidford Faulty logic: paving trails is more harmful, so mountain biking is acceptable. BS. Mountain bikers are full of specious arguments for doing whatever the heck they want.
A good point! I suggest first limiting motor vehicles in the countryside as they extend the human footprint massively (vastly more than bikes). And they are the main way those bikes get into the wild.
Additionally roads are terrible for wildlife on many grounds. Not least because they encourage “development” eg. housing and businesses…
Actually, I’m getting the feeling that you might share the conservation perspective jokingly suggested by the late Duke of Edinburgh when asked what he could do: “I’d like to be reincarnated as some kind of deadly virus”.
@mjvande@pacbell.net TLDR typical Septic thinking the USA is the World. This is the UK, you know, the place without the guns.
Just obey the direction.!! …..
Your approach would be different if it were your land
Get orf moy laaaand
It’s worth pointing out that unlike cycling on a pavement (i.e. a footway alongside a carriageway), cycling on a footpath is not a crime; it is a civil tort against the landowner. That means it’s not a police matter, and other people using the path have no standing to complain either (although of course you should still be careful and considerate of other people, regardless of the status of the right of way).
Indeed, without going into a full lecture on the history of Rights of Way and the noble tradition of mass trespass (e.g. Kinder Scout), there is an argument that the law implicitly condones such “illegal” use of paths, given that new rights of way can be created by members of the public demonstrating that they have used the path without permission but “as of right” for long enough, without the landowner taking action to curb such use.
As an additional point of information, I would note that the offence of causing injury by “wanton or furious” cycling applies anywhere. I’m no lawyer, but I struggle to see that the designation of the right of way would have much sway, but rather any case would rely on the broader context and whether the manner of the cycling was safe given the terrain and conditions.
@OnYerBike
What a clown…..
Different attitude if I was on your land
Why? Are you a vandal?
Mountain bikers don’t care about obeying the law!
@mjvande@pacbell.net
Mike Vandeman, is that you?!
https://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/biking/trial-mike-vandeman/
@james-o Yes. The mountain bikers are still breaking the law. I saw two more yesterday.
“Breakin’ the law, breakin’ the law..” – Judas Priest
“Call the cops!” – The Happy Mondays
“There’s only one way of life,
and that’s your own, your own..” – The Levellers
@james-o A great philosopher once said: “naughty naughty, very naughty!”
@james-o Yes. The mountain bikers are still breaking the law. I saw two more yesterday.
@mjvande@pacbell.net You… ‘saw’? : )
@james-o Thanks for demonstrating for the gazillionth time: mountain bikers refuse to address or end their lawbreaking.
@james-o Thanks for demonstrating for the gazillionth time: mountain bikers refuse to address or end their lawbreaking.
“mountain bikers refuse to address or end their lawbreaking.”
SOME mountain bikers do ride on paths that they don’t have inherent rights to use and some do build jumps where they shouldn’t. That’s just people and it happens across every aspect of life.
Still, that’s some emotionally-charged adversarial rhetoric you’re coming out with (giving you the benefit of the doubt – most would call it trolling). It’s entrenched and ignores causes to generalise for effect – to polarise, mainly. If your aim was conflict resolution it’s a poor effort. If your aims were to show how negative MTBing is you’d need to be more credible in your sources and presentation. You haven’t changed.
@mjvande@pacbell.net Haven’t you been arrested multiple times and done jail time for assaulting mountain bikers?
@Rendel Harris No, you are misinformed. I was just exercising my right to do a citizen’s arrest of illegal mountain bikers. But it’s interesting how mountain bikers refuse to address or stop their illegal mountain biking.
@mjvande@pacbell.net So you weren’t arrested in 2010 for assault with a deadly weapon for hitting two mountain bikers with a saw? Because there’s an awful lot of information online that says you were and that you were found guilty in court on a number of charges, and it appears you have been arrested several times for the same type of offence as well. All misinformation, is it?
@Rendel Harris All charges were dismissed. I just caught several mountain bikers breaking the law. You don’t want to talk about that, huh? Mountain bikers would like to talk about anything except the fact that they break the law every day, riding illegally and building illegal trails. No wonder no one takes them seriously….
@Rendel Harris
2 mins on google,
“Vandeman’s legal counsel negotiated a plea bargain. He pleaded guilty/no contest to reduced misdemeanor charges to avoid a full jury verdict, resulting in a sentence of probation, mandated community service, and a formal restraining order barring him from the parks”
“Official trial details and plea negotiations are documented in mainstream journalism following the prosecution of Michael J. Vandeman on six criminal counts of assault, battery, and vandalism. Formal requests for official court minutes and dockets can be submitted through the Alameda County Superior Court.”
A lot of the info online is via MTB press and he would say that’s biased, but his claim that all charges were dismissed does not fit with a number of reports. I doubt the media would report on a court case and present an untrue outcome – instead they all present the same.
And that’s my last post on all this, because Mike is a troll with more energy for it than anyone would think is normal. He’s been banned from most sites.
@mjvande@pacbell.net
Well now Michael, it’s very naughty to lie and as James has pointed out below the charges were not dismissed, you got away with a plea bargain involving community service, probation and a ban from the areas in which you committed the offences. Looks like you were extremely lucky to get away with that, I’ve seen the court docket setting your bail at $30,000 which would appear to indicate an extremely serious offence.
In answer to your question, no I don’t wish to discuss mountain biking with you, partly because I don’t do much these days but mainly because everything I have found out about you online indicates that you are a monomaniacal loony notorious for trolling cycling websites who is prepared to carry out serious assaults using weapons on mountain bikers so I get just the suspicion of a feeling that any discussion is not going to be terribly productive. Happy trails!
Worth remembering that the intent of the legislation was to secure a minimum right of access over the years this has become a de facto maximum right of access. Landowners can allow access to cyclists on footpaths if they choose to. Not pointing a finger at the hard done to farmer but large landowners like NT and Water Companies they can permit more access than the legal minimum
Just imagine how much great hiking and mountain-biking there would be if we hadn’t had the Enclosure Acts! (Not to mention grazing, coppicing etc.)
The Right to Roam campaign aims to secure rights in England and Wales that Scotland has taken for granted for decades (and most of Scandinavia for millennia). The campaign is focused on access by foot rather than bike, but the Enclosure Acts are indeed villains of history.
It seems to me that one of the issues here is the amount of damage a walker does to the land versus the damage caused by mountain bikes. I am sure someone here can point to research which shows the difference is small but has anyone looked into the damage done by e mountain bikes which are becoming more and more popular. Then of course we have the issue of modified e MTBs or electric motorbikes which are often difficult to tell apart.
The other issue is the inconsiderate treatment of walkers by mountain bikers on footpaths. If you get off and walk past people on foot then it shouldn’t be a problem, just as you would do on a narrow pavement in town.
I live in Scotland (smug mode initiated).