If Huge owns the land (or has permission to drive over the land I guess) on which the bridleway passes then he is at liberty to drive along it.
Though in a sense the ROW status is irrelevant here.
Crossbow bolt through the neck as they tear along!
The message from chris French contains these words:
Yes, my drive is a public footpath and i would have real problems if I couldn't drive on it.
Care to explain why you are exempt from the law?
Peter Crosland
Expect that, same as for me, he's either the owner of the track that also has a "public bridleway" right of way along it and can therefore drive what he wants along it; or he has permission from the owners of said track to drive on it??
jim
Precisely- hence the post - hoping for some pragmatic practical ideas that have worked (or not worked) elsewhere or even how to shame/ encourage/assist those fine august bodies mentioned (that I help to finance heavily of course) to do their flamin' jobs..
jim
why target practice of course ;>)
What servants?
Only ministers in NU Laber have servants these days. And a few bankers possibly.
Special status. Wayleave and so on. Or is it an easment.. Never can remember.
Which is fair enough, but very much the exception rather than the general rule. The poster was being deliberately contradictory for the sake of it rather than making a constructive comment. In fact the law has been changed in the last few years so that a loophole which allowed powered vehicles on many bridleways has been closed. It is also worth mentioning that there is considerable confusion about the exact legal status of some "ways" of different kinds.
Peter Crosland
Which is fair enough, but very much the exception rather than the rule. I suspect that the poster was being deliberately provocative rather, than making a relevant contribution to the discussion. In fact the law has been changed in recent years to close a loophole that allowed motorised vehicles to use many bridleways. This does not seem to be widely known and neither does the difference between the various kinds of "ways" even amongst some so called professionals.
Peter Crosland
OK I know that, I should have been more precise, but the police are less likely to chase off-road vehicles for lack of tax and insurance. A prosecution on a normal, public, metalled road used legally by motor vehicles should be easy. (They might be road-legal of course).
And anyway, they'll get away with claiming landowner's permission
If you own it, you can drive a tank on it if you want. May be restrictions if an SSSI
Some famous(?) mountain biker owned a fair sized chunk of land and set up various trails on it. One time he got a bout of severe verbal abuse, threats with walking sticks and threats of being taken to court by some ramblers or riding a bike around them.. it ended up with the Police being called.
Who then told the ramblers to leave *his* land, on *his* trail that *he* owned.
I bet that rankled.
4 classes of road now.
NO. From your own link...
4 classes of rural HIGHWAY. Only one of which is a 'road' Though BOATS=20 are traditionally called 'green roads'"There are at present four classes of highway =E2=80=93 footpaths, brid= leways,=20 roads used as public paths (RUPPs) and byways open to all traffic=20 (BOATs). It is clearly established that footpaths carry rights of way=20 for pedestrians only,bridleways have rights for pedestrians and=20 horse-riders (and since the Countryside Act 1968 rights for cyclists),=20 and BOATs have rights for pedestrians, horse-riders and all vehicles."
There is no such thing as a "green road". The term is meaningless, it has no legal definition.
And it most assuredly *is* a bridleway. I've seen the Definitive Map.
Ta-da! Give the man a cee-gar.
Doesn't matter, since both are wrong in the case of a public footpath.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.