View to Guisborough over Old Park Farm

Comments

4 responses to “View to Guisborough over Old Park Farm”

1. 

   Peter Astle

   18th April 2021

   I also nearly came to grief at the hands of mountain bikers in the Lake District. This was on a public footpath on the descent from from Ullock Pike along The Edge. The speed of descent of the two bikes in question could only be described as well beyond wreckless. I contacted to Lake District National Park to see what was there stance or policy on cycling on public footpaths. I was somewhat surprised at their reply which I post here in full as I thought you may find it of interest after your encounter:-

   “The first thing to mention is that such usage is not illegal in that it is not a criminal offence. Like walking across land where there is no recorded public footpath, it is a civil offence against the landowner. And if the landowner does not mind, then it is not even trespass.

   Just to briefly explain the status of different public access routes and land:
   • Footpaths – for use by walkers only;
   • Bridleways – for use by walkers, horse-riders and pedal cyclists;
   • Restricted byways – for use by all of the above plus horse and carriage;
   • Byways Open to All Traffic – for use by all of the above plus mechanically propelled vehicles (trail bikes and 4x4s);
   • Permitted Cycle routes – some paths do not have legal access for bikes, but landowners have offered to allow usage on a permitted basis;
   • Open Access Land – open for walkers, possibly with equestrian or other rights depending on the specific area and how it became open access.

   Mountain bikers therefore have a legal right to use all public rights of way except footpaths, and may be able to use some open access land (especially some of the common land – including footpaths on them). And of course, if landowners are happy for cyclists to use their land, or footpaths on their land – then this is also legally acceptable.

   In simple terms – we don’t have a specific written policy about these matters. However, we are aware that usage can raise conflict between users, and so we do a lot of work in raising awareness with different user groups about their rights and responsibilities. We have had codes of conduct for mountain bikers and work with local clubs and shops to help get the message across, and this helps mitigate issues that arise. Like any user group, mountain bikers will do some damage to the rights of way they use, and repair of these paths comes under our general maintenance work throughout the National Park.

   Our overarching policy is to help resolve conflict between users, other users, and landowners – which underpins all the work we do in managing the rights of way network. However, I must also say that these conflicts are relatively rare, and in all my years of walking in the countryside I have rarely, if ever, witnessed any actual incidents. And nor have we had any reports of actual accidents or injuries to walkers in the 15 years or so that I have been working in rights of way. Over the years we have found that perception of conflict and danger is generally far greater than the reality. And official studies about this topic seem to bear our experiences out.

   I can’t speak for our partners, as they will all have slightly different stances. However, some actively develop mountain bike routes – such as the Forestry Commission in Grizedale and Whinlatter. And others (such as the National Trust and United Utilities) work with us to both create routes and to manage the issues as described above.

   I must again stress that cycling on footpaths is not an offence and if the landowner is happy to tolerate cyclists, then it is not trespass either. Therefore it would not be appropriate for us to actually take any action against people cycling on footpaths – as they are not actually ‘prohibited’ from using footpaths. I am sure that you will understand that we cannot really enforce something that is not an offence.

   The other thing worth mentioning though is about the ‘adrenalin seeker’ aspect. This is where there is likely to be most conflict and danger – because there is less likelihood of the cyclists giving way to walkers or taking avoiding action. This behaviour would probably be covered by the normal highway related offences of things like ‘riding furiously’ or ‘without due care and attention’. These are Police matters – but how you/we would report such matters without actually stopping the cyclist and finding out who they are I’m not really too sure. And this is a task that is probably beyond us at present.”

   Reply
   1. 

      Fhithich

      18th April 2021

      Hmmm, bit of a patronising response. I wonder what parts of the Countryside Code they do try to enforce.

      Reply
2. 

   Janet Cochrane

   19th April 2021

   That’s an interesting stance by the Lake District, although it is true that it isn’t an offence to use a Footpath on a horse or cycle – or presumably any other means of transport (trail-bike, 4WD) if the landowner doesn’t object. There is absolutely no excuse for the reckless behaviour of some mountain-bikers, but the unfortunate fact is that only around 27% of the public rights-of-way network is available to other users than pedestrians, as so many historic ways were incorrectly inscribed on the definitive map back in the early 50s, while others were ignored altogether. Hence the work being done now by volunteers with the British Horse Society, Ramblers, and others to get these anomalies sorted out before the 2026 deadline.

   Reply
   1. 

      Fhithich

      19th April 2021

      No doubt if a landowner allows, say 4WD vehicles to use his land, he would have some liability if an accident or third party damage occurs. But I wonder what his liability would be if he turned a blind eye to such usage.

      Reply