Well, as our local RoW Officer is possibly the biggest waste of space in a public official that I have ever seen, I would say the chance of him being a problem is minimal...
‘It’s ok, we are only pushing our bikes on this footpath so it’s ok”
- Thread starter Doing it for the kids
- Start date
Well, as our local RoW Officer is possibly the biggest waste of space in a public official that I have ever seen, I would say the chance of him being a problem is minimal...
Princess Pooper
Member
- Location
- East Mids
Our local council put all the kissing gates in, as it was an access improvement compared with the stiles. We have also had cyclists going through, despite having to negotiate 7 kissing gates. Didn't see them, just the wheel marks. Funnily enough they went to go a second time a few weeks later and turned back at the second field. We had recently had in calf heifers in there and although we had moved them a couple of days previously, it had obviously had cattle in and I suspect they thought it was still occupied and decided not to risk it.
hi, dont worry. Noe disrepect at all. He would choose to only go where it is safe. So a path around a flat field or down a farm track. He or indeed I, wouldn't dream of trying to get him through a field of cows ''just beacause we are allowed''. Guess all arent like us though.
Last edited:
- Location
- Westish Suffolk
Apologies if I missed anything, but is it within the local farmer's remit if someone is riding a bicycle whilst on a footpath? I do get the issue if across a field though.
Doing it for the kids
Member
it is if they have cycled places They shouldn’t have to get there.
everyone on this farm is treated as suspicious until proved otherwise.
its the point of principle that I get angry by, had they asked first I may have taken a slightly different view
- Location
- Scottish Highlands
You are of course correct in what you have said but it is the omission that interests me. I had to explain the law to our local wayleave officer and here I go again. I think I am correct in saying that a landowner has a right to evict a trespasser using reasonable force if he declines to go. I am in Scotland so probably won't get the opportunity to test the law whether getting my big hairy dog to bite a trespasser who refuses to leave is reasonable force or not. Shame that. Nothing beats knowledge gained through practical experience.
fieldfarmer
Member
But as soon as they fail to comply or refuse your request to leave, it becomes aggravated trespass which is a criminal offence the quicker you raise the stakes the quicker the police will become involved.
farmerm
Member
- Location
- Shropshire
Don't raise the stakes and blood pressure to the level of miserable cnt until you actually need to, 99.9% of the time is not necessary! I have on plenty of occasions found myself accidently trespassing whilst on a bike when the waymarked route simple disappears! If a wayward member of the public is causing damage to your property or stress to your livestock 99.9% of the time you can quietly educate them, if their mere presence causing stress to you then you need to quietly educate yourself!
I Think you under estimate the feeling of invasion over your fields/ home / workplace when you have a Huge number of people constantly travelling through, when only a few years ago they was none, the change is crazy,It s like working in a goldfish bowl, The new world.
kiwi pom
Member
- Location
- canterbury NZ
I see what you're getting at but people have just as much right to walk on a footpath as they do a road. Road traffic has increased too hasn't it?
I think the best thing for your sanity would be to correctly fence your footpaths and treat them the same as you would roads.
Once there's no doubt over where the footpath is you'll have an easier time going after those who deliberately break the rules and trespass.
Doing it for the kids
Member
how long / when where you last in UK out of curiosity?
kiwi pom
Member
- Location
- canterbury NZ
July 2019.
Parents and brother still live in Cheshire. My brother works on the same farm I did on the edge of sunny Winsford so I'm very familiar with footpaths and the hassle they cause.
That's why I say if it was my land, footpaths would be fenced off and if I had a path through my yard I would do everything I could to get it moved. If it didn't work I'd put up with I'd certainly try.
- Location
- Near Beeston Castle
Winsford is a nice place to come from.
- Location
- Westish Suffolk
An element of the Public can be a problem for sure. During the assorted lockdowns, increased footfall on Knettishall Heath ( Suffolk wildlife trust ) has had bbqs, dogs + poo all over the place, litter, nesting plovers chased off, and to cap it all, children even being lifted onto the native ponies grazing there. Someone was even beating up their puppy last week and the ranger was told to feck off when approached.
Strange times.
Strange times.
HolzKopf
Member
- Location
- Kent&Snuffit
Reading through this thread again, there is no doubt that the massive increase in walking and cycling are of concern to most of us. My real objection is to the 'walkers' not ramblers, that I agree have the same right to use a path but are generally ill prepared for the conditions and treat the paths and adjoint land with disrespect re dog fouling, litter, general soft damage to the surroundings and their own unpleasant residues from their need to pee and poo.
The same goes then for the cyclists; there are two or three breeds: The lycra clad speedsters that dominate some of our rural A and B roads with little regard for safety - i.e. others' and their own. Then, the week-end leisure bikers, including young families who have a rudimentary knowledge, little experience and somehow think they are entitled to a perceived 'right to roam'. Then there is the old school, those that have always been there, properly prepared and respectful; those who enjoy their surroundings and appreciate what we do to assist in that regard.
The difference is that the category 1 and 2 folk have in the last year or so increased exponentially. The fall-out is noticeable by all of us. Frankly they are a pain and I only hope that when lockdown eases permanently these folk go back to their previous 'excercise' elsewhere.
HK
The same goes then for the cyclists; there are two or three breeds: The lycra clad speedsters that dominate some of our rural A and B roads with little regard for safety - i.e. others' and their own. Then, the week-end leisure bikers, including young families who have a rudimentary knowledge, little experience and somehow think they are entitled to a perceived 'right to roam'. Then there is the old school, those that have always been there, properly prepared and respectful; those who enjoy their surroundings and appreciate what we do to assist in that regard.
The difference is that the category 1 and 2 folk have in the last year or so increased exponentially. The fall-out is noticeable by all of us. Frankly they are a pain and I only hope that when lockdown eases permanently these folk go back to their previous 'excercise' elsewhere.
HK
Last edited:
Trying to get to the heart of your problem here.
'Lycra-clad speedsters' (I'm always puzzled by the apparent obsession with what people wear - maybe a therapist could shed some light?). How do they 'dominate'? They are entitled to use rural A and B roads. They are classified as road users and please don't get me started on the average driver's regard for safety (at least for others) - in most cases any such regard is only generated after they have injured a pedestrian, cyclist or other driver. (And I do mean most cases. I do include, or at least would have included, myself in this - modern vehicles cosset drivers far too much and divorce us from the reality that our vehicles are also killing machines.
Weekend leisure bikers and 'right to roam'. Do you mean they have no right to roam on public highways or do you mean access to bridleways etc.? If they are public highways and public bridleways they are (correct me if I am wrong) entitled to be there - whether knowledgeable or unknowledgeable.
And, though this bothers me least, of whom should this third group need to be respectful?
- Location
- Oxfordshire
You are of course correct that people do have the right to walk along a footpath, but do we want a countryside 'littered' with signs and fences? Surely the whole point of getting out in to the countryside is be in nature and get away from urban life. I have several signs up around the farm making the rights of way clear, but people still walk straight past them, and I do not believe this is not a choice they make. 1 lady a couple of weeks ago walked straight past a large(ish) red sign with an arrow pointing out the right of way. She walked straight past this ignoring the sign. I can not believe for 1 moment that she did not see the sign. If we start putting up signs and fences then people will complain about the urban sprawl in to the countryside. We can not win!
kiwi pom
Member
- Location
- canterbury NZ
I think it's got to the stage that if people can't keep to the path, you have to fence it in, especially if you keep stock in the paddock.
I know its a huge cost you shouldn't have to make though.
ollie989898
Member
I wonder if a large field with suitable tramlines might be worth advertising as a place for runners to go and do circuits if you charge for the privilege?