I have cycled from Nottingham to Trent Lock along the path and didn't notice that many pedestrians near Beeston Marina. During the day, especially at weekends it's busier near Attenborough lakes. Isn't this section part of the Trent Valley Greenway? Also, further along the canal, near Boots, it's part of the Big Track - a council initiative to get more people cycling. I suspect the owners of the Marina are a bit narked by people cycling along this route, but it's a much nicer and probably quicker alternative to the main road route through Beeston.
We have a similar situation heading east along the south bank of the river from Lady Bay. The riverside path is interrupted at the Sailing club near Holme Pierrepont.
The dotted green line on the OS map shows that there is a public right of way on foot. The orange dots indicate a cycle route - a route which cycles are allowed to use (though not imply a public right of way for cycles). It is not unusual for cyclists to be asked to dismount over short sections of cycle routes.
The answer to your question is that you cannot be prosecuted for ignoring the sign. That would require the council to make a bylaw or Traffic Regulation Order and for this to be made clear by erecting the proper road signage. Proper signage would be either a red circle with a bicycle in it meaning "riding of pedal cycles prohibited", or a red circle with nothing in it meaning "all vehicles prohibited except non-mechanically propelled vehicles pushed by pedestrians".
If the sign represents the genuine wishes of the landowner, to ignore it would constitute trespass, which (contrary to popular myth) is not an offence and cannot lead to prosecution. However, the law does acknowledge it as a civil wrong allowing the landowner to seek redress (ie. sue for damages). Given the trivial nature of the trespass there is no realistic probability of being sued.
A bigger practical consideration might be that if there is no right of way for cyclists, it means that the route is open to cyclists by agreement or permission. If cyclists cause nuisance or aggravation by ignoring the requests to dismount there is a small possibility in the long run that agreements may not be renewed or permission may be revoked.
One last point - It's not unusual to find outdated signs prohibiting cycling on routes which have subsequently been opened to cycle use. I've even known parts of the NCN to have not been cleared of "no cycling" signs. I've noticed sections of canal to be particularly bad in this regard.
TrevA wrote:...I suspect the owners of the Marina are a bit narked by people cycling along this route, but it's a much nicer and probably quicker alternative to the main road route through Beeston.
We have a similar situation heading east along the south bank of the river from Lady Bay. The riverside path is interrupted at the Sailing club near Holme Pierrepont.
For me cycling from West Bridgford to Derby it is certainly quicker than riding the roads through Beeston The same would probably be true of anyone travelling out from along the canal or river.
I'd forgotten about the section past the sailing club but now you mention it yes it is essentially the same situation although the path there descends to almost nothing IIRC.
Bicycler wrote:The dotted green line on the OS map shows that there is a public right of way on foot. The orange dots indicate a cycle route - a route which cycles are allowed to use (though not imply a public right of way for cycles). It is not unusual for cyclists to be asked to dismount over short sections of cycle routes.
The answer to your question is that you cannot be prosecuted for ignoring the sign. That would require the council to make a bylaw or Traffic Regulation Order and for this to be made clear by erecting the proper road signage. Proper signage would be either a red circle with a bicycle in it meaning "riding of pedal cycles prohibited", or a red circle with nothing in it meaning "all vehicles prohibited except non-mechanically propelled vehicles pushed by pedestrians".
If the sign represents the genuine wishes of the landowner, to ignore it would constitute trespass, which (contrary to popular myth) is not an offence and cannot lead to prosecution. However, the law does acknowledge it as a civil wrong allowing the landowner to seek redress (ie. sue for damages). Given the trivial nature of the trespass there is no realistic probability of being sued.
A bigger practical consideration might be that if there is no right of way for cyclists, it means that the route is open to cyclists by agreement or permission. If cyclists cause nuisance or aggravation by ignoring the requests to dismount there is a small possibility in the long run that agreements may not be renewed or permission may be revoked.
One last point - It's not unusual to find outdated signs prohibiting cycling on routes which have subsequently been opened to cycle use. I've even known parts of the NCN to have not been cleared of "no cycling" signs. I've noticed sections of canal to be particularly bad in this regard.
The sign at the other end of the section of path is in much worse condition so I wonder if they pre-date the NCN.
Thank you for the detailed response. I wasn't intending to disregard the signs but had been wondering what significance they had.
Bicycler wrote:The dotted green line on the OS map shows that there is a public right of way on foot. The orange dots indicate a cycle route - a route which cycles are allowed to use (though not imply a public right of way for cycles). It is not unusual for cyclists to be asked to dismount over short sections of cycle routes.
The answer to your question is that you cannot be prosecuted for ignoring the sign. That would require the council to make a bylaw or Traffic Regulation Order and for this to be made clear by erecting the proper road signage. Proper signage would be either a red circle with a bicycle in it meaning "riding of pedal cycles prohibited", or a red circle with nothing in it meaning "all vehicles prohibited except non-mechanically propelled vehicles pushed by pedestrians".
If the sign represents the genuine wishes of the landowner, to ignore it would constitute trespass, which (contrary to popular myth) is not an offence and cannot lead to prosecution. However, the law does acknowledge it as a civil wrong allowing the landowner to seek redress (ie. sue for damages). Given the trivial nature of the trespass there is no realistic probability of being sued.
A bigger practical consideration might be that if there is no right of way for cyclists, it means that the route is open to cyclists by agreement or permission. If cyclists cause nuisance or aggravation by ignoring the requests to dismount there is a small possibility in the long run that agreements may not be renewed or permission may be revoked.
One last point - It's not unusual to find outdated signs prohibiting cycling on routes which have subsequently been opened to cycle use. I've even known parts of the NCN to have not been cleared of "no cycling" signs. I've noticed sections of canal to be particularly bad in this regard.
The sign at the other end of the section of path is in much worse condition so I wonder if they pre-date the NCN.
Thank you for the detailed response. I wasn't intending to disregard the signs but had been wondering what significance they had.
I've used this route quite a few times, is it really that big a deal to walk a couple of hundred meters? There's barriers to negotiate at either end which I think you have to dismount for and a narrow bridge with tyre swallowing gaps between the planks, by the time you've negotiated those I can't imagine there's much time to be gained by getting back on and riding. If time really is of the essence, the road is probably the better option anyway, the surface of that track means it isn't the quickest.
PH wrote:I've used this route quite a few times, is it really that big a deal to walk a couple of hundred meters? There's barriers to negotiate at either end which I think you have to dismount for and a narrow bridge with tyre swallowing gaps between the planks, by the time you've negotiated those I can't imagine there's much time to be gained by getting back on and riding. If time really is of the essence, the road is probably the better option anyway, the surface of that track means it isn't the quickest.
I agree, I wasn't really suggesting it's a problem or that I would cycle through there. I was more interested in the significance of the signage. I do however see some people cycling along that section and they mostly have tyres wide enough not to get trapped in the plank bridge unlike me.
Sorry, I hadn't registered that it was part of a navigation . The Canal and River Trust (formerly British Waterways), who maintain such navigations and adjoining paths, are probably best placed to say whether the signs are obsolete. As I say, they are not always very good at removing old no cycling signs when they decide to open their paths to cyclists, but there are also plenty of places along canals and rivers where asking cyclists to dismount is sensible.
If contacting them, I'd also suggest that the old British Waterways no cycling sign (on the post in your night time photo) and the marina's rather stern "no cycling permitted" sign could be removed. They are superfluous and potentially confusing and off-putting to cyclists. If dismounting through this section is deemed necessary for safety reasons, the "cyclists dismount" sign is sufficient and much clearer to people using the path.
I've cycled from Trent Lock to Nottingham a few times as part of a longer route to work. I have got off and walked at Beeston Marina plus the lock (whose name I can't remember) just past Trent Lock on the way to Beeston. I don't know how old or relevant the signs are but I wouldn't want to annoy folk and put at risk any permissive path. I have seen that stretch very busy with pedestrians on weekends and on a warm summertime evening.
PH wrote:I've used this route quite a few times, is it really that big a deal to walk a couple of hundred meters? There's barriers to negotiate at either end which I think you have to dismount for and a narrow bridge with tyre swallowing gaps between the planks, by the time you've negotiated those I can't imagine there's much time to be gained by getting back on and riding. If time really is of the essence, the road is probably the better option anyway, the surface of that track means it isn't the quickest.
If they expect you to walk - for any reason, its not a cycle route is it?
There should be a signposted route that can safely be ridden as an alternative if they are claiming it as a cycle route.
Convention? what's that then? Airnimal Chameleon touring, Orbit Pro hack, Orbit Photon audax, Focus Mares AX tour, Peugeot Carbon sportive, Owen Blower vintage race - all running Tulio's finest!
Bicycler wrote:Sorry, I hadn't registered that it was part of a navigation . The Canal and River Trust (formerly British Waterways), who maintain such navigations and adjoining paths, are probably best placed to say whether the signs are obsolete.
I think that Beeston Marina is on the river section rather than the canal section, which unfortunately changes this a bit. CRT own the canals and their towpaths, but generally not the rivers and their towpaths (where there is one). Rather, CRT will have some rights to maintain navigability over the riverbed, plus ownership of the navigation structures - locks, lock cuts etc.
So in this case it's possible that the land is owned by Beeston Marina rather than CRT; and if it's not a 'cycle track', road or bridleway in law, then they'd be in their rights to require dismounting.
cycle.travel - maps, journey-planner, route guides and city guides
foxyrider wrote:If they expect you to walk - for any reason, its not a cycle route is it? There should be a signposted route that can safely be ridden as an alternative if they are claiming it as a cycle route.
You're right of course, and wouldn't it be nice if every cycle path was continuously cyclable without ever having to get off, but if you apply that criteria there wouldn't be much left in the UK and a fair few I've used in France and Spain would also fail. In this case, approaching from the Nottingham side you can see the road that goes around it (You'd have just cycled a bit of it) and on my route from the other direction (I think other routes also have obstacles) I've already dismounted and walked across a railway line with gates at each side.
Last edited by PH on 15 Nov 2015, 9:00pm, edited 1 time in total.
. The Canal and River Trust (formerly British Waterways), who maintain such navigations and adjoining paths, are probably best placed to say whether the signs are obsolete. As I say, they are not always very good at removing old no cycling signs when they decide to open their paths to cyclists, but there are also plenty of places along canals and rivers where asking cyclists to dismount is sensible.
