With a planned amendment to the law (BIKE reported), the Hessian state government wants to force mountain bikers throughout the state onto paths that can also be used by cars. Trails would then generally be taboo! To prevent this, anyone who has not yet done so can use the Online petition as part of the DIMB campaign "Open Trails Hessen" sign.
If the change in the law is implemented, fines of up to 100,000 euros could be imposed in future for violations of forest trespassing laws. And that would affect all forest visitors. If the state government has its way, forest visitors who want to enter the forest "with several people" and "for a common purpose" will in future require the authorisation of the forest owner under unspecified circumstances. Helmut Klawitter, DIMB legal officer, comments: "Hesse is reverting to a feudal system of rule from the 18th century. Anyone who wants to go into the forest with family and friends is affected by this and should defend themselves against this abstruse restriction!"
However, fines of 200 to 600 euros are already common practice in Hesse for travelling on supposedly incorrect routes. In the opinion of the DIMB, these are not justified. Although the current legal situation restricts cycling to "fixed paths", it does not prohibit cycling on narrow paths - e.g. single trails. "If the legislator had wanted a path width regulation to apply to cyclists, it would have chosen the same wording as for horse riders and carriage drivers, who are banned from fixed paths at least 2 metres wide in the same paragraph," Klawitter explains the legal situation.
The originally undefined legal term "fixed routes" was specified by the Cologne Administrative Court (judgement of 02.12.2008, 14 K 5008/07), a definition that is also relevant for the federal state of Hesse. It states: " ... "Firm" paths within the meaning of § 2 Para. 2 LFoG NRW are not necessarily artificially paved paths, but also paths with a naturally firm surface, which are suitable for cycling in the forest due to their nature, in particular their surface and width. The suitability of the paths for cycle traffic is largely determined by whether the use of the paths by cyclists can lead to destruction of the forest floor, disturbance of wildlife and disturbance of other recreational users, such as hikers."
There can therefore be no blanket ban on trails. "It has to be assessed on a case-by-case basis whether a path is suitable for cycling or not," says DIMB lawyer Helmut Klawitter. In his opinion, the criteria developed by the Cologne Administrative Court also do not require any other restrictions on cycling on fixed forest paths. "The Hessian state government would do well to follow the guidelines from the Federal Forest Act and take the court's definitions into account in its new draft legislation," Klawitter continued.
DIMB Chairman Thomas Kleinjohann is clearly critical: "The state government and its forestry offices have overshot the mark with this arbitrary change of direction in the interpretation of the law. The trail closures that have been implemented on this basis in the Taunus region since 2009, for example (and whose non-compliance led to the imposition of the high fines mentioned above, editor's note), are largely legally untenable and we have repeatedly called for their removal. Now the new draft law attempts to legitimise the injustice retrospectively."
Despite his annoyance, the DIMB chairman can't help but smile: "The only amusing thing is that the ministry has also copied the wrong version from Lower Saxony. There, the two-lane regulation has already been in the state forest law for years, but this is to regulate the multi-lane driving of motor vehicles and carts in the forest and not single-lane cycling. But faulty plagiarism is no longer a rarity in German ministries."
More info on www.dimb.de
Sebastian Brust
Editor
