No bikes allowed: Longleat confirms restricted access for cyclists after security unhappy with rider near stately home

OldRidgeback wrote:

I'd be curious what incidents they're referring to though.

Yes...I'm currently engaged in a months-long dialogue with a major central London development (ongoing so I won't name them) that promised cycle through routes as a condition of planning permission but has for months had security guards trying to make cyclists dismount. When asked why, the management said there had been "a number of incidents." When I asked how many, had anybody been hurt etc they said "We don't keep records of that sort." In my experience "incidents" often boil down to "someone complained about an allegedly dangerous cyclist and we took them at their word."

"There's been a number of incidents"

"What incidents? How many?"

"We don't keep records of that sort"

"Then how do you know you had any incidents?"

Indeed that is an ambiguous answer that they have provided.

I would assume that they expect cyclists who have bought a ticket to lock up their bikes and walk.... but could be wrong.

Rendel Harris wrote:

Still not totally clear (well done for getting a response though): is it just non-paying cyclists who are banned, or would one not be allowed to ride, or even push, one's bike around the grounds if one bought a ticket?

I think you can take your bike into the grounds, the FAQ's only forbid you from cycling through the safari drive, which I don't think you can really argue with!

"Most vehicles are accepted for entry into our Safari Drive Through except for soft top cars, motorbikes and bicycles."

They sound a lot more accommodating than Whipsnade Zoo, which despite being so large you can take your car in and drive about, they class bikes in the same list of banned items as weapons (see below).

They do allow kids to take a kick scooter. So when I had a broken toe, I got my son to push the scooter in through the main gate whilst I hobbled along behind him, then when we got round the corner, I grabbed it off him and zoomed off!

IanMSpencer wrote:

My question now is, are there pedestrian permissive ways through Longleat (what about right to roam?) and if not, if I have a puncture and am no longer a cyclist, do I have the right to my walk of shame having run out of patches?

I've had a quick look at the OS maps and no public rights of way exist through the park. No right-to-roam either, the nearest open access land is Cley Hill, just outside the park to the north eastern side.

You can walk the NCN route. To be fair to Longleat, it is good of them to allow permissive access through their estate and reasonable to ask people to stick to the route. I think they could improve the signage to make that clearer to users though.

Crank v Brooks - The moment you step off the 'cycle, you're a pedestrian and can go anywhere a pedestrian can.

It's a workplace so it will be private property (even if owned by the Government) and so they would be within their rights to say you can't bring in a bike through certain entrances - being a pedestrian in the eyes of the law is moot. Just like you might not be allowed to bring a dog into a restaurant.

True, unless you can demonstrate that the other entrance presents a danger, or disadvantage on the basis of disability (EA2010 S.20, S.21, S.149 if Government or acting as a public service).

I mean, it's somewhat moot to me - I can and do just ignore cycling restrictions, but I'm a bit of an edge case.

There are circumstances in which you can bring a dog into a restaurant, and in which the proprietors do not get a say - in fact, if they then refuse to serve you, it'll cost them a minimum of £1300 - but that is an edge case as well.

Crippledbiker wrote:

True, unless you can demonstrate that the other entrance presents a danger, or disadvantage on the basis of disability (EA2010 S.20, S.21, S.149 if Government or acting as a public service). I mean, it's somewhat moot to me - I can and do just ignore cycling restrictions, but I'm a bit of an edge case. There are circumstances in which you can bring a dog into a restaurant, and in which the proprietors do not get a say - in fact, if they then refuse to serve you, it'll cost them a minimum of £1300 - but that is an edge case as well.

...and yet they always refuse my emotional support squirrels

Intentionally taking you far too seriously As A Bit;

That's because Emotional Support animals have no bearing in law - they're not considered to be service animals, so you'd need to evidence it as a breach on another basis.

But does Grog have to walk their bike through the motor vehicle entrance instead?  I wonder what the health & safety risk assessment made of that...

If vehicles are allowed to drive through, there's no requirement to walk a bike - just cycle through.

Also, safer.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting it's a sensible policy, nor that there might not be other legal avenues to challenge the policy (such as H&S and/or Equalities Act, as have already been mentioned). My point was merely that Crank v Brooks and the finding that a person pushing a bike is a pedestrian in the context of the Highways Act is not especially relevant.

I take your point - I'm being somewhat overly serious and pedantic.

It's not just in the context of the Highways Act, mind, but in all matters - A PSPO forbidding cycling through a town centre, for example, cannot ban walking through with a cycle, because that isn't cycling.

But again, I'm being pedantic.

Crippledbiker wrote:

Crank v Brooks - The moment you step off the 'cycle, you're a pedestrian and can go anywhere a pedestrian can.

Genuine question. If you are still on the saddle but feet on the ground, walking it forward, which do you get classed. For the record, if I need to walk it I normally get off.

In Crank vs Brooks, as I recall, the judge remarked that it was the fact that the defendant (complainant? Can't remember) had the bike "in her hand" (odd phrase but one can see what they meant) classed her as a pedestrian and that had she had one foot on a pedal and been "scooting" judgement might have been different. In the light of that it seem fairly certain that sitting on the saddle and pushing with the feet would be seen as scooting - in fact given the determination of certain prosecutors to get cyclists wouldn't be surprised if they found some unrepealed anti-dandy-horse legislation...

Your recollection is correct; You must be walking, not scooting, and I would agree with your inference - Stood over the frame could be argued to still be mounted.

I, of course, get to ignore all of this and just do basically whatever I like

'The first person who, having enclosed a plot of land, took it into his head to say this is mine and found people simple enough to believe him, was the true founder of civil society. What crimes, wars, murders, what miseries and horrors would the human race have been spared, had someone pulled up the stakes or filled in the ditch and cried out to his fellow men: “Do not listen to this imposter. You are lost if you forget that the fruits of the earth belong to all and the earth to no one!”' - Rousseau

As for Longleat, it was nicked off the church by Henry VIII and given to a nephew of Jane Seymour, who flogged it to an ancestor of the Marquess of Bath for £53.

 '...this is mine and found people simple enough to believe him,.. '

For 'simple' read 'scared' in most cases.

The poor had no lawyers... (can't find the whole quote but it and a couple of other goodies are found in the excellent - if sometimes papery - The Poor Had No Lawyers dealing with Scottish land ownership.   Spoiler - the rich and powerful just take stuff they want and since they're normally in control of the law "but it's illegal!" generally won't help you).

In Scottish law if there is a dispute over land ownership that isnt satisfactorily proven the court awards the land to the majority land owner in the area on the basis that it is most likely to be theirs. Talk about dice loaded against the poor.

On a more positive note for Scottish Law, the 'Right to Roam' introduced in 2005 means that we can access the 'land' regardless of who owns it.