CTC Forum - On the road

Syndicate content
Discussion boards hosted by CTC, the national cycling charity
Updated: 1 hour 4 min ago

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.

Re: I Hate Virgin Trains

28 October 2014 - 5:56pm
Can I make complaint?

I want to know why a return journey is but a few pence more than a single journey by train. I would often like to cycle out some 60 miles from where I live to catch a train back...but paying just a few pence less for a single ticket than a return ticket would cost seems somewhat unfair. Of course,I could buy a return ticket,then put up the ticket on some 'gratis' board for some passenger returning to the station I had left earlier. That would be a 'giveaway' ...but one I fear our train operators would not endorse. From memory,the underground staff used 'to go spare' when I used to giveaway(gratis) my all-day purchased ticket when I had finished my journey(s)

FWIW I'm always frightened taking my bike by train. You have rules and regs to deal with. Then the inadequate storage for bikes. Dunno how any disabled people in a wheelchair get on trains in wheelchairs!!

Re: Unbelievable

28 October 2014 - 5:55pm
I was a marshal on a TT recently, when a local driving instuctor, without a pupil I think, totally ignored my red flag and drove regardless over the roundabout, forcing riders to brake heavily. I appreciate we don't have any power in these situations, but surely those with influence over new drivers should have some commen sence

Re: Pushing a bike on a footpath.

28 October 2014 - 5:55pm
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.

We do argue the toss over some stupidly insignificant details don't we?

I bet to the landowner it is a burning problem and quite significant. I personally think this law is evil and it may well be the case if the usage is something like nineteen years that he has just managed in breaking a case for acquired rights through usage. The lesson that people learn from this law is that being easy going is soon taken advantage of and you loose your rights over your own property. As the local cycle group is seeking to do now.

*As the dispute is brewing now it will be the twenty year run that he is trying to break.

Re: Pushing a bike on a footpath.

28 October 2014 - 5:28pm
beardy wrote:The landowner could try and take them to court, it would not be dealt with as a simple smalls claim because the very essence of the dispute is unresolved, so big money fees.
No body is claiming anything here is illegal, just trespass, which means no help from the Police.
His other option is to forcibly remove, this probably results in a fracas as the "cyclist" believes it illegal.
I dont know how the Police would react but I bet it would be to bind both parties over to keep the peace, which I guess means no more attempting to take the bike over the path until the issue is resolved. I admit that is a guess but I dont see how else they can decide who to prosecute.

If someone was using a footpath ie;walking on it pushing a bike and the landowner objected the most sensible thing to do would be to apologise and carry it,until he's gone or until next time.
If the landowner got violent the walker would be in his rights to defend himself,would he not?



Riding a bicycle along a footpath is not illegal, it is a civil trespass. The landowner can only forcibly remove and/or sue for damages.
I stand corrected.
So the landowner can only forcibly remove and or sue for damages if the bike's being ridden?
So what damages would bicycle do to a footpath if it were being wheeled along?

We do argue the toss over some stupidly insignificant details don't we?

I'll stick to my story in that I'd wheel the bike and see what happens,as it'd have to be a seriously heavy bike to do damage to a footpath or it's surrounding weeds and nettles

I'm going to leave it at that as it's all getting a bit silly.

Re: Pushing a bike on a footpath.

28 October 2014 - 5:16pm
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 unambiguous

You have no right to push a bicycle along a Public Footpath.

https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/roads/trav ... e-map.html

Re: Pushing a bike on a footpath.

28 October 2014 - 5:08pm
The landowner would need to take a suspected 'offender' to court to prove the point until then walking a bicycle isn't a against the law,it isn't against the law because there is no law that says it's illegal!

The landowner could try and take them to court, it would not be dealt with as a simple smalls claim because the very essence of the dispute is unresolved, so big money fees.
No body is claiming anything here is illegal, just trespass, which means no help from the Police.
His other option is to forcibly remove, this probably results in a fracas as the "cyclist" believes it illegal.
I dont know how the Police would react but I bet it would be to bind both parties over to keep the peace, which I guess means no more attempting to take the bike over the path until the issue is resolved. I admit that is a guess but I dont see how else they can decide who to prosecute.


Riding a bicycle on a footpath is against the law but we're not discussing riding,we're discussing walking with a bicycle.

Riding a bicycle along a footpath is not illegal, it is a civil trespass. The landowner can only forcibly remove and/or sue for damages.

Re: Pushing a bike on a footpath.

28 October 2014 - 4:52pm
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").

I dont know if you are a solicitor who deals in these matters or not but you are over simplifying here.
I unfortunately have painful experience of this issue and the fact that I ignored violations of my right of way (because it was clearly defined in the documents) was seen as acquiescing to their usage.

To explain this the only way they can force an issue of resolution is to attempt to use their right and then be denied it, at which point they can take it to court and be granted the right. You dont actually have the right through usage it just enables you to go to court and get it. If you dont stop them doing the violation, they had no chance to do that.
So acquiescing to a violation does allow that right to be established, even when there are signs up etc, failing to act to try and prevent known usage is seen as equivalent to accepting it as by right.
All the time of course nothing is certain until tested in a court and that is the big fear as it costs far more than the thing being disputed and the Judges take a dim view of such actions when awarding costs. So it makes very good sense not to let things develop in the first place.
I agree that sticking a sign up giving permission makes sense but I dont know if it is adequate if they have already been using it and that would again probably involve hundreds of pounds in solicitors fees.

Re: Pushing a bike on a footpath.

28 October 2014 - 4:30pm
reohn2 wrote:beardy wrote:Somebody would not be breaking any law by walking across your lawn either!

We are discussing a footpath are we not?

BTW I don't have a lawn,pebbles yes but no lawn

Yes we are talking about a footpath and there are no more laws forbidding riding a bike on a footpath than there are forbidding people walking across your pebbles (or other people's lawns).
If people were to come and start walking on your pebbles you have to admit you would get a little narked and probably tell them to "Go Forth" because it is YOUR property and they have no right to do so.
The same is true if people are riding bikes along a footpath, it is still their property and they possibly begrudge the walking on it but know they have to accept it but they do not have to accept cycling as well. TonyF33 did suggest doing that people do just that.

Last time I looked there was disagreement as to whether a pushed cycle counted as "usual accompaniment" or not. Unsurprisingly landowners and ramblers are of the impression that it does not and cycling organisations say that it might.
This can only be tested by taking it to court and that would cost tens of thousands probably.
This court case would need a trigger point like the landowner trying to forcefully evict you, possibly in the opposite direction to that you wished to travel.

Re: I Hate Virgin Trains

28 October 2014 - 4:02pm
There's a story of new cars being blown from their wagons off the Ribblehead viaduct

Re: Pushing a bike on a footpath.

28 October 2014 - 4:01pm
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").
Beat me to it

Re: Pushing a bike on a footpath.

28 October 2014 - 4:00pm
Psamathe wrote:.........So maybe owner is worried about what rights cyclists might acquire............

So what rights might they be?
If someone walks a footpath wheeling a bicycle are they likely to acquire any more rights than someone carrying a bicycle?

Re: I Hate Virgin Trains

28 October 2014 - 3:56pm
Jughead wrote:Despite all your well put points I still hate Virgin Trains. Their now charging me more for the same <i>[inappropriate word removed]</i> service. So I hate them more (and Scotrail)

By the way, don't you find trains are cancelled for the slightest of excuses nowadays.
I mean, who would have thought we would have beaten the leaves on the line excuse? An absolute topper.
However, it gets a bit windy and rainy and their cancelled. I mean trains are really feckin heavy. How does a blustery day cancel a train? Seriously, Are they playing politics?

I can't stand Virgin either. But leaves on the line are a real problem. They grind up under successive train wheels into a paste which acts like grease on the line, making it lethal - a bit like having grease on your rims if you have caliper brakes. Trains have long stopping distances at the best of times. The solutions are running special trains with equipment to clear the leaves and/or cutting back or cutting down trees and shrubs close to lines.
Wind certainly might affect the lighter multiple units if there was a strong cross wind, especially on bridges. I think a train once derailed on the long bridge over Morecambe Bay due to a strong cross wind. Going back further, one of the contributory causes of the fall of the Tay Bridge complete with an entire train (no survivors) was strong cross winds.

Re: Pushing a bike on a footpath.

28 October 2014 - 3:56pm
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").

Re: Pushing a bike on a footpath.

28 October 2014 - 3:39pm
reohn2 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!

Show me the laws in question that somehow someone pushing a bike along a footpath,allows anything more sinister to happen other than people walking that footpath wheeling a bicycle along by their side.
No idea, but there could be an element of fear about acquired rights. And they are real. When I purchased my house the deeds gave me rights to enter and carry out works on my neighbours property in order to maintain and install services. The rights were for a defined number of years (I can't remember how many). So I asked the solicitor what happens after the specified duration as I would still need services. Answer was that after said number of years with uncontested rights it is deemed that I have acquired those rights forever.

So maybe owner is worried about what rights cyclists might acquire. Ok, maybe a "No cycling" sign might suffice but that might need legal advice (cost), then proof that the sign was there and that the rules were enforced, ...

(Does not mean I agree with the owner, just that I can see some aspects that might explain their behaviour).

Ian

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