"It is lamentable that tax payers money is being handed out by government for works which are on the face of it incompatible with the law, let alone encouraging the use of bridleways as if they were cycle ways"

Says Maureen Comber

1. It's illegal because: In exercising their concessionary right to ride on bridleways under sec.30 Countryside Act 1968, cyclists must give way to pedestrians and horseriders.
2. The right can be taken away by a Traffic Regulation Order
3. The right conferred on cyclists does not replace any additional obligation on the Highway Authority with regard to maintenance of the bridleway.
4. The HA do not have to do anything to make the surface of the bridleway more comfortable or safer in order for use by cyclists.
5. In this case tarmacing would be perceived as damaging the surface of the bridleway because the preferred surface for horse riders is turf.
6. The maintenance of the path must serve the primary user, in the case of bridleways that is horse riders.
7. The path appears to run through the middle of a field. The question then arises as to who owns the field and if he/she has consented to this proposal?
8. Notwithstanding, it would compromise the character of the countryside if the path was metalled, and Natural England should be consulted in this respect.
9. Tarmac will cause run off and drainage problems
10. Horse riders will be tempted to ride in the corn as it is recognised that where a public path passes over open land "the extent of the highway is frequentlystill more indefinite to the right and left of what may be the ordinary passage". Elwood v Bullock (1844).

As the statutory authority the Suffolk CC will be liable for an accident if found to be caused by the changed nature of the surface of the bridleway to tarmac. I wonder if they realise that?

It is lamentable that tax payers money is being handed out by government for works which are on the face of it incompatible with the law, let alone encouraging the use of bridleways as if they were cycle ways! Very many horse riders were not around in 1968 when we were being encouraged to 'share our privileges' and I suspect that these days not many would agree that we should. The only defense we had in caving into that pressure, is that the mountain bike had not been invented and previously it was illegal to even push a cycle on a bridleway.

If the concession under sec.30 CA 1968 is not to be repealed, then we must press for more use of Traffic Regulation Orders preventing use by cyclists to protect the rights of horse riders on the 20% of bridleways available to them.