CTC Forum - On the road

Syndicate content
Discussion boards hosted by CTC, the national cycling charity
Updated: 1 hour 56 min ago

Re: Interpersonal communication

29 October 2014 - 9:17am
That was a bit forward of him, whatever happened to romance?

Interpersonal communication

29 October 2014 - 9:14am
is an odd thing, isn't it?

Only this morning I asked a lorry driver, who seemed to want to get to know me and my bike very well indeed, if there was anything I could help him with.

The answer, consisting of a single sentence, managed to included a reference to both fornication and male genitalia!

Ain't life grand!

Re: Parked cars - what do they *expect* I'm going to do.

29 October 2014 - 8:49am
Mirror, indicate, manoeuvre.

Re: Parked cars - what do they *expect* I'm going to do.

29 October 2014 - 8:25am
I've often thought of doing that, but, self preservation and so on.....

Re: Pushing a bike on a footpath.

29 October 2014 - 7:23am
Buy him a bottle of whiskey

Re: Pushing a bike on a footpath.

28 October 2014 - 11:53pm
As is a bus

Re: Pushing a bike on a footpath.

28 October 2014 - 10:45pm
If it's ok to walk with a stick it's ok to walk with a bike. Both are aids to the pedestrian.

Re: Parked cars - what do they *expect* I'm going to do.

28 October 2014 - 9:57pm
Whenever I'm beeped by a motorist behind me I always stop pedalling immediately and so slow down, and move into the centre of the lane.

If it happens near some lights and the motorist is stopped, I often pull in front of him (it's always a him) and start asking what the problem is. It's fun to watch a motorist ranting and raving noiselessly from inside his car while I adopt the look and gestures of innocent quizzical concern.

I think it is important to try to teach the tiny minority of bad mannered and impatient motorists that beeping their horn is not going to make all cyclists scurry out of their way as if they owned the road.

Re: Unbelievable

28 October 2014 - 9:41pm
Yes. They are licenced and members of a body.

Re: Unbelievable

28 October 2014 - 9:18pm
Do driving instructors belong to some sort of regulatory body that you could complain to?

Re: Unbelievable

28 October 2014 - 9:14pm
honesty wrote:email the driving instructor, would be interested to see what they say!

I phoned a driving instructor once but got a load of abuse,the next close encounter got a slap on the door,yes it was that close .

Re: Pushing a bike on a footpath.

28 October 2014 - 8:53pm
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.

Re: A ride too far

28 October 2014 - 8:36pm
Glad you enjoyed it Galaxy1. Thank you.

Re: Pushing a bike on a footpath.

28 October 2014 - 8:02pm
I hope so too. Illegal use is definitely not use "as of right".

I have never seen that layout of a road with a no entry sign at either end and it just doesn't seem correct. I agree that the exception plates are exceptional Other TROs on rights of way invariably use "no vehicles" or "no motor vehicles" signs. I have never heard of a TRO which has been made to exclude people pushing bikes and I can't understand why one would exist. I'm not even sure that one can be created. Councils don't make TROs to deal with an individual landowner's private nuisances or prevent the acquisition of public rights of way. It is quite common for TROs to restrict motor vehicle access to public rights of way but it is less common to see cycles excluded apart from narrow urban footpaths where they might be a public nuisance. My hunch is that the signs are not official or that there is a TRO but the wrong signs have been used.

The presence of that motorway makes me think there's just a vague chance the signs may have something to do with that - a side roads order? a relic of a temporary prohibition from the construction of the M25? In any case the two no entry signs on the road don't look right.

Re: Lights: flashing, bright: article in Cycle

28 October 2014 - 7:38pm
thirdcrank wrote:Just to satisfy my curiosity, if somebody has some form of bar-mounted front lamp, why would they be bothered whether it was just to the right of the stem or the left? I'm thinking here of some sort of clip-on bracket which goes on the fatter bit of the bars near the stem. I can understand why riders might be unaware of the requirement in the regs and so might position it to the nearsie, but I can't think of a reason for saying it's imperative that it should be fitted to there, rather than on the offside.

Because I might have another (main?) approved lamp on the offside (main and reserve tank?)

I think it is common on some Bromptons because it avoids the lamp being partially obscured by a brake/gear cable.

Re: Pushing a bike on a footpath.

28 October 2014 - 7:37pm
Bicycler wrote:...The one thing I would be very wary of is that no entry sign in the google streetview image. Assuming that sign has been properly placed you are committing a criminal offence if you ride past it. The whole of the lane may be covered by a traffic regulation order which may prohibit you from riding at any point along the lane. It is highly unlikely that the TRO prohibits you from pushing a bike but it may be worth checking with the council what exactly it does say...

Streetview shows the "No Entry" signs in place August 2008 with two signs at both ends. It seems unlikely that they would be there without a TRO, however the DfT are not fond of exception plates to "No Entry". "No vehicles" couldn't be used as it allows for pedal cycles to be wheeled.

I hope someone has checked before making the application for the DMMO, if cycling is prohbited by a TRO I can't see the application succeeding.

Re: I Hate Virgin Trains

28 October 2014 - 7:11pm
Get a 30 day return. Go out on the outward ticket and cycle back, then do the reverse within the 30 days.

Re: I Hate Virgin Trains

28 October 2014 - 6:51pm
Yeah, they are not transferable and I suspect it constitutes a offence under the railway bylaws. I'll agree that the single fares are annoying though.

Re: Pushing a bike on a footpath.

28 October 2014 - 6:21pm
meic wrote:Bicycler wrote:Okay. For dedication of additional public rights to be deemed then the use has to be "as of right" and without force, secrecy or permission. It does not count as use "as of right" if you give the public permission to use the route and it doesn't count as use as of right if people ignore a "no cycling" sign.

There is no legitimate reason to believe that pushing bikes where the owner has expressly forbidden cycling will create a right to cycle. If anything, the fact that the public push their bikes down the road is evidence that they do not believe they have a right to cycle down it (that their use is not "as of right").

In view of the post by Gaz on page one and subsequent links you are probably not allowed to push a bike along a footpath, so not stopping people to do so, if observed, would be seen as acquiescing to its use as a cycle route.
I had not looked at the earlier pages and it appears a cycling group is trying to establish usage as a cycle route and you can bet they would use such acts to support an application. Meanwhile the landowner has acted to stop any clocks ticking towards acquired rights. He has either a straight run of forty years to break* or a continuing run of twenty years to break.
No, I don't buy it. People are walking with their bikes because they have observed no cycling signs - they accept that they have no right to cycle. There is no way anyone would seriously propose that erecting no cycling signs but allowing people to wheel bikes was consistent with an intention to dedicate a right to cycle. As I said above , the sign is a clear and definite indication of contrary intention. If you had checked the link, you would have seen that the period being claimed ended several years ago, so new use is not in the scope of the application being considered.

This "evil law" (at least its common law form) is as old as our countries and the majority of our highways have developed in such a way - a defining feature of our landscape's history. I actually think it is quite an elegant and effective way of balancing public and private utility of land. In my view it is much more fair than the systems of compulsory purchase or enclosure of commons by which the state has sought to take property from individuals or even the right to roam legislation which has granted walkers so much freedom to enjoy the countryside. If you object to cyclists gaining new rights after using a path unchallenged for 20 years, I assume you consider it an outrage that we were suddenly allowed by the Countryside Act 1968 to ride on all bridleways in England and Wales from which we were previously excluded.

Re: Pushing a bike on a footpath.

28 October 2014 - 6:12pm
Meic, I'm not a solicitor. My knowledge of these matters largely dates back to my time as a footpath secretary for a ramblers group and researching, collecting user evidence and applying for a few definitive map modification orders, a couple of which related to bridleway rights deemed to have been dedicated over public footpaths.

It is for the landowner to assert their right and make it clear that they do not wish to dedicate a public right of way. In the absence of this, 20 years uninterrupted use as of right can lead to the statutory deemed dedication of a public right of way. I am not sure which documents you are referring to and how they indicated a lack of intention to dedicate. You may have had a sales document indicating that there were no existing public rights of way across your land when purchased but that does not prevent new ones coming into existence through long use.

This does not create a huge burden upon the landowner to challenge every use of the route, indeed they may be perfectly happy with the use but not wish to dedicate a public right of way. There is nothing automatic about the 20 years use, it merely creates a rebuttable presumption of the landowner's intention to dedicate the right of way. That presumption is very easily rebutted by clear evidence of contrary intention such as the erection of "no cycling" signs clearly showing that you do not wish to allow cycling. Permissive path signage performs the same role in indicating a lack of intention to dedicate whilst also indicating that the public may use the way with the permission of the owner. I can say with certainty that prominently displayed unambiguous signs erected during the claimed 20 year period are sufficient by themselves to defeat the claim. There are other ways of showing a contrary intention but signs have been effectively used for that purpose for centuries.

It's a minor point but any application based upon user or documentary evidence is requesting that the rights which have already come into existence are recorded, not for new rights to be granted.

If your incident involved a private right of way (easement) for an individual or group of individuals then I am afraid I do not know anything about them.

Archive

  • Patron: Her Majesty The Queen
  • President: Jon Snow
  • Chief Executive: Paul Tuohy
  • Cyclists' Touring Club (CTC): A company limited by guarantee, registered in England no.25185. Registered as a charity in England and Wales No 1147607 and in Scotland No SC042541

 

Terms and Conditions