CTC view on public footpaths

[Vorpal]

I don't think that countryside access for cyclists is really any different than for any other non-motorised user.

I do agree that issues pertaining to the right to ride on the road must take priority. However, the CTC could potentially join an alliance of organisations (Ramblers? Open Spaces Society?) with a goal of open access such as in Scotland. And I would support them doing so.

[Geriatrix]

I don't think that countryside access for cyclists is really any different than for any other non-motorised user.

I do agree that issues pertaining to the right to ride on the road must take priority. However, the CTC could potentially join an alliance of organisations (Ramblers? Open Spaces Society?) with a goal of open access such as in Scotland. And I would support them doing so.

+1

[PaulCumbria]

There was a piece on R4 this morning on the rejection of a planned zipwire in a Lake District National Park area. The zipwire was to be installed over a disused slate quarry near a main road with the support of park rangers. It was rejected by Friends of the Lake District and Lake District National Park Authority, prompting the resignation of Sir Chris Bonington

There are so many parallels between that issue and this debate.

My vote is with Sir Chris Bonington.

Not quite, Geriatrix - LDNPA officers have been solidly in favour of this for a long time - it's just the board who keep blocking it. Friends of The Lake District is simply a lobby group with no power to accept or reject this idea - and they're loathed by locals in the NP.

The board's intransigence has caused absolute fury among locals, who are overwhelmingly in favour of the (experimental, independently assessed) installation of what would be an astounding bit of kit, reconnecting the Lake District with its history of thrill-seeking now sadly diluted by sclerotic attitudes towards 'heritage'.

FWIW, I reckon the CTC policy is totally unattainable and potentially very divisive between us and natural allies like the Ramblers and Living Streets. Own goal, IMO.

[Steady rider]

http://www.snh.gov.uk/docs/A309336.pdf

page 81 of 136 provides advice for cyclists.

It is from
http://www.outdooraccess-scotland.com/o ... ss-rights/

Related links
Download the full Scottish Outdoor Access Code

[ChrisButch]

If there is any that are in the know, how is it that cycling managed to secure an equal footing with walkers when access rights were defined?

There was a different point of departure for the debate, since, as I mentioned in an earlier post, there was no existing category of Right of Way from which bikes are statutorily excluded, as there is in England. There was also the de facto right of access to wild land in the Highlands outwith the stalking season, which had few parallels in England. I was involved in the consultation before the Scottish Act, but as a hillwalker rather than cyclist, so I can't comment in detail about how the cycling issue was approached then.

[thirdcrank]

Something I posted on the current thread about pushing bikes past a traffic light on the pavement has led me to wonder if this policy is part of a cunning plan to regularise pavement cycling.

In the modern jargon, we tend to regard "footpaths" as rights of way on foot over private land and "footways" as the pavement part of a highway - the other bit being the "carriageway."

When footpaths were first laid down alongside roads, they were attractive places to be, when compared with the mess that passed as a road surface, but regular use by "higher users" ie anything more than foot passengers would have turned them into bridle paths or roads through regular use. The solution was to make riding horses and driving carriages, cattle and steam engines on footpaths alongside roads into a criminal offence.

If the definition of footpath were to be changed to allow cyclists to use them as of right, then, in the absence of a specific saving to the contrary, cyclists would have a right of way on footways.

Cunning plan? As if.

[Whippet]

I agree with Meic, I like to walk along in a daze with my dogs.

I dont like the idea. It could have quite a bad effect on peoples' enjoyment of going out for a stroll or a jog.

Too often on here we have comments posted about "ignorant peds" walking along in a dream world with their dogs loose or on a triprope lead. About children running wild, day dreamers with walkmans on failing to notice that a cycle wants to pass.

I reckon that they should be free to carry on doing so on their footpaths, they have already lost such peace of mind almost everywhere else.
I do think that it is rather easy to say that cycles dont cause much erosion when it is somebody else's land. I can sympathise that a landowner may not agree as they have to shoulder the damage.

Shortly after some such ruling came into force would people then be obliged to make everywhere reasonably accessible by cycle and then shortly afterwards by tandem, trike and trailer, then by wheel chair?

We have access to bridleways, free roaming of Forestry Commission land and shouldnt be getting greedy for the footpaths (same goes for the equestrians).

[reohn2]

Something I posted on the current thread about pushing bikes past a traffic light on the pavement has led me to wonder if this policy is part of a cunning plan to regularise pavement cycling.

In the modern jargon, we tend to regard "footpaths" as rights of way on foot over private land and "footways" as the pavement part of a highway - the other bit being the "carriageway."

When footpaths were first laid down alongside roads, they were attractive places to be, when compared with the mess that passed as a road surface, but regular use by "higher users" ie anything more than foot passengers would have turned them into bridle paths or roads through regular use. The solution was to make riding horses and driving carriages, cattle and steam engines on footpaths alongside roads into a criminal offence.

If the definition of footpath were to be changed to allow cyclists to use them as of right, then, in the absence of a specific saving to the contrary, cyclists would have a right of way on footways.

Cunning plan? As if.

Stranger things,especially from an organisation not answerable to it's members but in the pocket of government

[AndyK]

In the modern jargon, we tend to regard "footpaths" as rights of way on foot over private land and "footways" as the pavement part of a highway - the other bit being the "carriageway."

[...]

If the definition of footpath were to be changed to allow cyclists to use them as of right, then, in the absence of a specific saving to the contrary, cyclists would have a right of way on footways.

Cunning plan? As if.

The difference between the two is defined in law (and not that modern):

"footpath" means a highway over which the public have a right of way on foot only, not being a footway ;
"footway" means a way comprised in a highway which also comprises a carriageway, being a way over which the public have a right of way on foot only ;
-- Highways Act 1980

So a footpath is defined specifically to be something that isn't a footway. You'd have to change the definition of footpath completely, not just add cyclists into it.

[ChrisButch]

The difference between the two is defined in law (and not that modern):

"footpath" means a highway over which the public have a right of way on foot only, not being a footway ;
"footway" means a way comprised in a highway which also comprises a carriageway, being a way over which the public have a right of way on foot only ;
-- Highways Act 1980

So a footpath is defined specifically to be something that isn't a footway. You'd have to change the definition of footpath completely, not just add cyclists into it.

Glad you've made that clear. From earlier posts it's clear that quite a few people who have contributed are unaware of that unambiguous distinction.

[thirdcrank]

Is there a link to the legislation creating that distinction? Bear in mind that definitions used in one enactment do not necessarily apply to others.

I certainly know the difference in modern usage between a footpath and a footway, but the Highways Act 1835 which is the legislation which prohibits pavement cycling refers to footpath

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Wil ... section/72

What I'm saying is that "pavements" were created as rights of way on foot - ie footpaths. It's possible to change the designation of a right of way by use and if nothing had been done, in no time at all they would have been changed to rights of way for higher users. They tried to prevent that by making what would otherwise only have been trespassing into a criminal offence. Incidentally, a lot of the problem with pavement parking stems from the problems caused by trying to use the Highways Act for something it was not intended to deal with.

[Richard Mann]

What I'm saying is that "pavements" were created as rights of way on foot - ie footpaths. It's possible to change the designation of a right of way by use and if nothing had been done, in no time at all they would have been changed to rights of way for higher users. They tried to prevent that by making what would otherwise only have been trespassing into a criminal offence.

An amusing thought is that many "pavements" have probably been cycled on since the day they were built, and so it's dubious whether they were ever created in the manner described in the 1835 Act. It all gets a bit circular.

[ChrisButch]

What I'm saying is that "pavements" were created as rights of way on foot - ie footpaths.

Few, however, have ever been classified as 'Public Footpaths' within the meaning of the various Rights of Way statutes from the 1949 Access to the Countryside Act and its successors: and it's these with which the CTC statement is concerned.

[thirdcrank]

First, let me say I was being a bit tongue in cheek, but having said that, just because the CTC says something, it doesn't make it a definitive statement of the law.
========================================================================
Edit to add

This is the reference and link for the definition of footway, as posted above.

s 329 Highways Act 1980:-

329 Further provision as to interpretation. In this Act, except where the context otherwise requires—
(...)
“footpath” means a highway over which the public have a right of way on foot only, not being a footway;
“footway” means a way comprised in a highway which also comprises a carriageway, being a way over which the public have a right of way on foot only; (My emphasis)

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/66/section/329

[ChrisButch]

First, let me say I was being a bit tongue in cheek, but having said that, just because the CTC says something, it doesn't make it a definitive statement of the law.

========================================================================
I wasn't for one moment suggesting or, I hope, implying, that it was: but merely pointing out that it is with Public Footpaths within the meaning of the various countryside access acts that the CTC statement concerns itself, not other kinds of footway or footpath to which the public may have access; and that confusion between these categories is not helpful in responding constructively to the CT'C's approach.