simonineaston wrote:.......ill-advised Wiggo-likes, struggling to keep their 'racers' going in a straight line along a rutted muddy path.
More likely to be crossers and Rough Stuff Fellows than roadies getting lost
simonineaston wrote:.......ill-advised Wiggo-likes, struggling to keep their 'racers' going in a straight line along a rutted muddy path.
A case in 1861 at Bristol Assizes concerned a particularly difficult owner who tried to remove a lady who was pushing a pram along an urban footpath. The judge advised the jury that if pushing a pram constituted driving a carriage then the owner would be justified in removing her as the right of way was on foot only. However, the jury concluded, and the judge agreed, that pushing a pram was not driving a carriage but merely associated with walking. Thus his view that the owner could have removed a carriage driver has only the status of an obiter dictum
Cycling along footpaths has not been held to be a public nuisance. If cycling was a private nuisance to the owner it would be a trespass even with a right of way. So if cycling along, say, a bridleway is not a private nuisance then cycling along a footpath cannot be. The clear implication is that a cyclist on a public footpath has lawful authority to be there and is not a trespasser.
thirdcrank wrote:I find it confusing that this article has been published on the CTC www without any sort of explanation about its purpose. It's in the "Campaigns" section but there's no link to a campaign. It's easy to get the impression that somebody thought "This sounds good: let's put it on the website."
Adam S wrote:Also mentioned is this case:A case in 1861 at Bristol Assizes concerned a particularly difficult owner who tried to remove a lady who was pushing a pram along an urban footpath. The judge advised the jury that if pushing a pram constituted driving a carriage then the owner would be justified in removing her as the right of way was on foot only. However, the jury concluded, and the judge agreed, that pushing a pram was not driving a carriage but merely associated with walking. Thus his view that the owner could have removed a carriage driver has only the status of an obiter dictum
Well fine, but you can't just dismiss obiter dicta when you can't bring up anything which contradicts them. The decision was reached on the basis that a pram was a "usual accompaniment" for a foot passenger and was thus a legitimate use of the highway and not trespass. This would have been entirely irrelevant if the right of passage was not restricted to those on foot. If anyone had seriously believed that the public had a right to push, drive or ride anything they reasonably could down the footpath, the woman's right to push a pram would not have been in question.Cycling along footpaths has not been held to be a public nuisance. If cycling was a private nuisance to the owner it would be a trespass even with a right of way. So if cycling along, say, a bridleway is not a private nuisance then cycling along a footpath cannot be. The clear implication is that a cyclist on a public footpath has lawful authority to be there and is not a trespasser.
This is some very distorted logic. Nuisance is a separate issue to trespass so this is all completely irrelevant. No cyclists have been prosecuted as a public nuisance because they cycled on footpaths, that doesn't mean that they cannot be a public nuisance. A cyclist who rides on a bridleway does so exercising a statutory right, that cannot in itself constitute a private nuisance. A cyclist riding along a footpath isn't exercising a statutory right so the comparison is not valid. I've no idea where this implication of "lawful authority" to ride on footpaths has come from.
Labrat wrote:Mathias in full: ...
Edwards wrote:....... I want some where to escape from what I call Audi drivers on bikes.
I said on one of the many threads about vehicles and the definition thereof, that a pram is actually a vehicle.thirdcrank wrote:Labrat wrote:Mathias in full: ...
A very interesting read ...................
I think it's worth pointing out that the judge intentionally didn't rule that pushing a pram on a footpath was OK, but rather left it to the jury, who couldn't agree a verdict, even with a strong steer from him in favour of the pram.
Mick F wrote: I said on one of the many threads about vehicles and the definition thereof, that a pram is actually a vehicle.
I seem to remember you saying that you'd never heard that before. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Am I right in saying that there has never actually been a ruling about prams?
I do know that a bicycle has been ruled to be a vehicle - as you have often posted, and linked a copy of the ruling from way back in the 1800s.
reohn2 wrote:... it's no wonder walkers are hostile toward cyclists.