Member of the general public splattered with mud on bridle/public footpath.??

Pilatus

Member
Location
cotswolds
Last week end ,a member of the general public ,while walking on the bridleway ,which goes alongside the shed I rent,complained to the estate office that they had been "splattered by mud" when a teleporter type handler drove by them at high speed (more like when the telehandler drove through a puddle at high speed).
Would the person that so say got splattered have any legal grounds to to take the matter forward if they were that way inclined??
I do get comments from people about the thin layer of mud on the track,and inform them that they are now in the country and so one should wear wellies rather than trainers during the autumn and winter months.The people that walk this lovely walk are mainly from Cheltenham ;);):banghead::banghead:(n)
 

Old Boar

Member
Location
West Wales
It depends on the classification and your rights of way of the bridle path. It is normal for no motorised vehicles to be able to use the path, but does vary. A member of the public could expect not to be splashed by a motorised vehicle, even though they could be splashed by a horse at a trot.
 
Is it that much different to being splashed by a car whilst standing on a pavement?
If it was deliberate they may well have a point but if an accident they just need to get on with it, an apology may have helped but then again they might be the sort who like to be offended.

Very hard to judge these situations unless you were there and seen what happened.
 

ewald

Member
Arable Farmer
Location
Mid-Lincs
I would be more worried about the possible safety angle i.e. vehicles moving at speed (allegedly) close enough to members of public to splash them with mud.
If this is really happening, a word with the operator is in order.
In reality, it is probably a disaffected dog walker trying to stir trouble.
 

Dry Rot

Member
Livestock Farmer
I would say the walker has a case. We all have a duty of care to one another, even to a trespasser or a burglar as has been discussed here before.

But I doubt it was a criminal act to splash the walker unless deliberate and even if it was, the aggrieved walker would have to prove the case. So probably a civil case in which case the walker could raise an action for damages. But are those damages really going to justity spending the court's time on such nonsense?

The matter could simply be deal with by an apology. They are only words after all. I really don't understand the modern obsession with apologies. Mostly, they are insincere and meaningless! Turn the page and move on.
 

Puff

Member
It depends on whether the bridleway is subject to the Highway Code. If it is, then the the driver could be reported to the Police for driving without reasonable care and could potentially get up to 9 pts and £5000 fine, particularly if it was done deliberately.
 

Goweresque

Member
Location
North Wilts
If it is definitively a bridleway, then there should be no motorised vehicle on it.

Nonsense, bridleways are often on farm tracks, so would be used by vehicles all the time, and also the owners of the land would be entitled to drive where they liked on their own property as well. The designation of a bridleway means that the general public cannot use them for vehicular access - anyone who has the owners permission can drive where they like.
 

llamedos

New Member
Nonsense, bridleways are often on farm tracks, so would be used by vehicles all the time, and also the owners of the land would be entitled to drive where they liked on their own property as well. The designation of a bridleway means that the general public cannot use them for vehicular access - anyone who has the owners permission can drive where they like.

Like me you are second guessing, as the op gives no mention of the ownership of the bridleway. But whatever the status, both walkers and riders take precedence over vehicular access, and should if there is shared access give way.
 

Goweresque

Member
Location
North Wilts
Like me you are second guessing, as the op gives no mention of the ownership of the bridleway. But whatever the status, both walkers and riders take precedence over vehicular access, and should if there is shared access give way.

It doesn't matter who owns the land the bridleway is on, anyone with the owners permission can drive a vehicle on that piece of land. One assumes the OP has the owners permission to be on the land in question, as he rents a barn from them. Therefore he is perfectly entitled to drive a vehicle where he did. The designation of a bridleway on a map does not preclude that track/lane/open field from having vehicles on it, otherwise (for example) my neighbour wouldn't be able to get to his farm, as his farm driveway has a bridleway all the way up it. Obviously both types of user should be respectful of each other, but both have a perfect right to be there.
 

Fiacre

Member
All hell broke loose at the Parish Council the other night.....

Children caught riding their toy quad bikes on the well surfaced Bridleway on the edge of the village. Parents reported, police called, councillors informed, agenda item for the Parish Council Meeting.....

Turns out that they had asked the farmer owner of the RoW for permission, which had been freely given because he felt sorry that the kids had nothing to do in the village of an evening.

Now, most of the village has turned their wrath on the farmer.....
 

SFI - What % were you taking out of production?

  • 0 %

    Votes: 80 42.3%
  • Up to 25%

    Votes: 66 34.9%
  • 25-50%

    Votes: 30 15.9%
  • 50-75%

    Votes: 3 1.6%
  • 75-100%

    Votes: 3 1.6%
  • 100% I’ve had enough of farming!

    Votes: 7 3.7%

Red Tractor drops launch of green farming scheme amid anger from farmers

  • 1,292
  • 1
As reported in Independent


quote: “Red Tractor has confirmed it is dropping plans to launch its green farming assurance standard in April“

read the TFF thread here: https://thefarmingforum.co.uk/index.php?threads/gfc-was-to-go-ahead-now-not-going-ahead.405234/
Top