Pushing a bike on a footpath.
Re: Pushing a bike on a footpath.
A landowner who doesn't mind people walking on a path on their land can allow it on a 'permissive' basis. That doesn't create any rights AFAIK, s long as it is clear that it is 'permissive'. You see quite a few of them these days, some on privately owned land, some on water companies' land, all sorts.
At one time I believe the landowner had to close the path for a set number of days a year just so it didn't become a right of way, but I'm not sure they have to do that now.
At one time I believe the landowner had to close the path for a set number of days a year just so it didn't become a right of way, but I'm not sure they have to do that now.
Re: Pushing a bike on a footpath.
If it's ok to walk with a stick it's ok to walk with a bike. Both are aids to the pedestrian.
Whatever I am, wherever I am, this is me. This is my life
https://stcleve.wordpress.com/category/lejog/
E2E info
https://stcleve.wordpress.com/category/lejog/
E2E info
-
- Posts: 2347
- Joined: 29 Sep 2007, 7:35pm
- Location: Cork, Ireland. Corcaigh, Éire má tá Gaeilge agat.
Re: Pushing a bike on a footpath.
Buy him a bottle of whiskey
Re: Pushing a bike on a footpath.
Gearoidmuar wrote:Buy him a bottle of whiskey
Laced with 'chill the fluff out it's only a few cyclists on a bit of road every now and again that unless you're twtiching your net curtains you aren't going to see anyway' tablets
Re: Pushing a bike on a footpath.
Cant you just deliver some junk mail to qualify
Perhaps a leaflet on cycling
Perhaps a leaflet on cycling
Re: Pushing a bike on a footpath.
Psamathe wrote:meic wrote:I am afraid that "the little Hitler" is obliged by our country's stupid laws to kick up a fuss about this.
If he just lets it happen like a nice friendly person may feel like doing then after 20 years people can apply for a right from usage and forbid him from ever doing anything to his land that interferes with that right!
I have been following this thread and was forming the "unpleasant owner" opinion. But you raise a good point regarding acquired rights. Whilst I don't know the surface, I also wonder if bikes might damage the surface more and place a greater maintenance cost burden on the owner (assuming the owner has to pay for maintenance; assuming it is the responsibility of the owner to maintain a public right of way).
Ian
The surface is gravel and lasted for many years with no obvious maintenance. The gates have led to a decrease in traffic so that , with nettles closing in, it is now hardly passable on foot - perhaps the aim is to extinguish any ROW.
Re: Pushing a bike on a footpath.
Tonyf33 wrote:Having had a look at the the sattelite picture there seems to be a bridlepath running alongside the river that meets up with the road near the underpass. Not ideal when it's wet but avoids any issues with the local turnip
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Mud ... 68857d4fb3
That is also (according to OS) a footpath. It is much narrower especially with nettle growth in late summer but yes we have been that way to avoid confrontation. You still have to pass one of LT's gates but not his lair.
Re: Pushing a bike on a footpath.
PRL wrote:The surface is gravel and lasted for many years with no obvious maintenance. The gates have led to a decrease in traffic so that , with nettles closing in, it is now hardly passable on foot - perhaps the aim is to extinguish any ROW.
Rest assured that once they exist they can only be extinguished by a legal mechanism.
It is generally the council's duty to cut back vegetation to stop it interfering with the highway. They don't tend to do much of this over the winter but if reported now it'll get sorted when they are next doing similar work in the area.
By the way, the landowner needs permission (from the council) for any new gates (rather than just replacing old ones) across any right of way. Unless there is a need to control livestock such permission is unlikely to have been granted. If no permission was granted the council have a legal obligation to order their removal.
-
- Posts: 4339
- Joined: 11 Nov 2012, 9:24am
- Location: On the borders of the four South East Counties
Re: Pushing a bike on a footpath.
Strictly it's the responsibility of the (County usually) council to keep the footpath clear of vegetation growing on it, but side vegetation is the responsibility of the land owner.Bicycler wrote:PRL wrote:The surface is gravel and lasted for many years with no obvious maintenance. The gates have led to a decrease in traffic so that , with nettles closing in, it is now hardly passable on foot - perhaps the aim is to extinguish any ROW.
Rest assured that once they exist they can only be extinguished by a legal mechanism.
It is generally the council's duty to cut back vegetation to stop it interfering with the highway. They don't tend to do much of this over the winter but if reported now it'll get sorted when they are next doing similar work in the area.
By the way, the landowner needs permission (from the council) for any new gates (rather than just replacing old ones) across any right of way. Unless there is a need to control livestock such permission is unlikely to have been granted. If no permission was granted the council have a legal obligation to order their removal.
Like others I agree that the "No Entry" signs are not the same vehicle prohibition signs. In fact there is a no entry sign on a two way road near me - it doesn't mean vehicles are prohibited. How those signs will be viewed in the claim by the cycling group for 20years unrestricted use I don't know.
You're correct about the gates. Perhaps anyone challenged by the landowner could enquire about how long the gate has been there etc. The problem is it depends on the landowner. The likes of Hoogstraten, and rough types can be extremely challenging!
"It takes a genius to spot the obvious" - my old physics master.
I don't peddle bikes.
I don't peddle bikes.
Re: Pushing a bike on a footpath.
Yes, I agree, there's a distinction between overgrowth (from adjacent land) and undergrowth (from within the highway boundaries including verges). The example being given was nettles reducing a lane to a width where it can barely be passed on foot and that is undergrowth. In any case it is the council's duty to ensure that the highway is not overgrown and that adjoining landowners perform their duty (if needs be they have the power to do the work and bill the landowner). The council is still an appropriate contact if a member of the public finds a route overgrown even though it is the landowner's responsibility.
Signs - The thing that seemed odd there was the presence of no entry signs at both ends of a road, apparently prohibiting all traffic from accessing the road. It would be very odd to have a regulation order made with that restriction and specifying no entry signs. If the signs are correct then it is illegal to cycle past them and thus illegal to cycle the complete route. As DMMO applications rely upon the use of the route as a public through route and not merely access to property this poses a problem. Use which is knowingly illegal cannot constitute use as of right and nor can a landowner be assumed to have dedicated a right to do something which he knew to be prohibited by law.
Signs - The thing that seemed odd there was the presence of no entry signs at both ends of a road, apparently prohibiting all traffic from accessing the road. It would be very odd to have a regulation order made with that restriction and specifying no entry signs. If the signs are correct then it is illegal to cycle past them and thus illegal to cycle the complete route. As DMMO applications rely upon the use of the route as a public through route and not merely access to property this poses a problem. Use which is knowingly illegal cannot constitute use as of right and nor can a landowner be assumed to have dedicated a right to do something which he knew to be prohibited by law.
Re: Pushing a bike on a footpath.
Set up a hidden camera to see if the landowner ever drives along the whole road in one go, i.e. not for access. Then just ignore the signs as they do.
Re: Pushing a bike on a footpath.
Bicycler wrote:Signs - The thing that seemed odd there was the presence of no entry signs at both ends of a road, apparently prohibiting all traffic from accessing the road. It would be very odd to have a regulation order made with that restriction and specifying no entry signs. If the signs are correct then it is illegal to cycle past them and thus illegal to cycle the complete route.
The Surrey CC interactive map shows a Surrey cycle route going past the no-entry sign on Sanway Rd under the M25 and then dotted to Wisley Rd.
Whoever produced this
1) disbelieved the No-Entry sign
2) at least thought that pushing a bicycle did not constitute trespass.
Re: Pushing a bike on a footpath.
PRL wrote:Bicycler wrote:Signs - The thing that seemed odd there was the presence of no entry signs at both ends of a road, apparently prohibiting all traffic from accessing the road. It would be very odd to have a regulation order made with that restriction and specifying no entry signs. If the signs are correct then it is illegal to cycle past them and thus illegal to cycle the complete route.
The Surrey CC interactive map shows a Surrey cycle route going past the no-entry sign on Sanway Rd under the M25 and then dotted to Wisley Rd.
Whoever produced this
1) disbelieved the No-Entry sign
2) at least thought that pushing a bicycle did not constitute trespass.
As far as signs go they are either correct or they aren't. The council should be able to provide the order to which they relate. Anything else is speculation. It would be a mistake to assume that the preparation of the cycle route layer of the online map involved a detailed ground survey and the checking of all applicable Traffic Regulation Orders.
The trespass question is unlikely to be definitively answered anytime soon (until somebody takes it to court and nobody has bothered in the 150 years the bicycle has been around) but it mostly seems to be cycling groups who think it isn't. The civil servant at Surrey CC was almost certainly working from their own understanding rather than stating an informed opinion on an obscure matter of rights of way law. In any case their opinion would be irrelevant.
Re: Pushing a bike on a footpath.
beardy wrote:Skim down to "What are my rights on a public right of way" on these links.
http://www.plymouth.gov.uk/usersofprow
http://www.sthelens.gov.uk/what-we-do/t ... hts-of-way
Sheffield City Council is quite unambiguousYou have no right to push a bicycle along a Public Footpath.
https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/roads/trav ... e-map.html
I'd have suggested that Crank vs Brooks (the single worst name pair for a piece of case law in all of cycling) would strongly suggest that a person pushing a bike (i.e. having their feet on the ground and not on a pedal) classifies as a pure pedestrian, and that SCC is therefore talking baloney,
Of course they probably try to ban pushchairs and wheelchairs as well, it's a footpath after all. Walking sticks, crutches... shoes?
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.