CTC Forum - On the road

Syndicate content
Discussion boards hosted by CTC, the national cycling charity
Updated: 1 hour 22 min ago

Re: Visibility: why are do so many riders in black

27 October 2014 - 10:35pm
Many sporting riders are Rapha clones or Team Sky wannabes. Team Sky kit is black, so is the kit of the Rapha-Condor racing team. Go into any bike shop and you are faced with a choice of ill-fitting Hi-viz or figure-hugging black lycra.

There are other coloured tops available but you have to shop around for them. Try buying bottoms in any colour that isn't black - you may be there some time.

Re: Visibility: why are do so many riders in black

27 October 2014 - 10:33pm
Do you really think that a study which involves only 76 crashes is conclusive proof?
Perhaps it is if you want it to be.

Re: Visibility: why are do so many riders in black

27 October 2014 - 10:16pm
Sagwagon wrote:I never said it was equal responsibility but a cyclist can help themselves and should.

Given that hi-viz has been shown to have no effect on cyclist safety exactly how does it help a cyclist help themselves?

Re: Visibility: why are do so many riders in black

27 October 2014 - 9:59pm
mjr wrote:Mick F wrote:I dress like a banana with a funny hat, plus wear mitts and have a mirror, plus have "visibility lights".
None of this can do any harm, and if it helps, that's good innit?
It can do harm... by helping to make cycling look like the sort of activity that is so dangerous it requires special protective clothing. We should join forces with walker safety organisations and reject this assault by motoring intersts.
+1

Re: Mudguard suggestions please

27 October 2014 - 9:47pm
Parlez-vous Francais? Salmon, web site seems to be down; quelle domage.

Re: Pushing a bike on a footpath.

27 October 2014 - 9:44pm
Yes, the OP question seems to be about the civil offence of trespass, the "usual accompaniment".

Motor vehicles generally can't be driven off-road or on a footpath (except within 15 yards of a road in order to park there, etc). RTA 1988 s34. This restriction is for motor vehicles, which don't include bikes.

Re: Mudguard suggestions please

27 October 2014 - 9:37pm
Thanks all for the suggestions. The SKS Race Blade XL is probably my best bet the problem is that they are a bit finicky in terms of fitting them. I've had them on a previous bike and they don't last a full season without rubbing/making noise etc... quite high maint in my opinion. I wish there was a mudguard that had two pieces... one for in front of the brake caliper and the other behind!

Re: Pushing a bike on a footpath.

27 October 2014 - 9:28pm
snibgo wrote:Mick F wrote:You are not permitted to propel a vehicle along a public footpath.
A key word isn't propel but drive. Riding a bike is driving it, wheeling a bike isn't driving.

("Propel" is used in phrases like "mechanically propelled vehicle", not to determine that because is vehicle is being propelled it is therefore also being driven.)

Thus riding (=driving) a bike on road-side footpaths isn't allowed under the 1835 Highways Act, as Bicycler says a criminal act, but wheeling it is.

(Yes, pushing a car is driving it, while pushing a bike isn't driving. This is a quirk of the law.)
The law I was referring to wasn't the one referring to footpaths next to roads (pavements) because this lane isn't that type of footpath. The Road Traffic Act makes it an offence to drive a motor vehicle down a public footpath, bridleway or restricted byway.

Subject to the provisions of this section, if without lawful authority a person drives a mechanically propelled vehicle—
(a)on to or upon any common land, moorland or land of any other description, not being land forming part of a road, or
(b)on any road being a footpath, bridleway or restricted byway, he is guilty of an offence.
So, to answer your question Mick, it is generally an offence to drive your motor anywhere other than a public road (common exceptions include things like access to property or where you have the landowner's permission)

Re: Pushing a bike on a footpath.

27 October 2014 - 9:09pm
Bicycler wrote:....... in the case of motor vehicles it is also a criminal offence.Not on private land.
Propelling a vehicle of any persuasion or design is not a criminal offence away from the public roads.

Maybe I'm wrong on this point?
Can anyone clarify?

Re: Pushing a bike on a footpath.

27 October 2014 - 9:04pm
Mick F wrote:You are not permitted to propel a vehicle along a public footpath.
A key word isn't propel but drive. Riding a bike is driving it, wheeling a bike isn't driving.

("Propel" is used in phrases like "mechanically propelled vehicle", not to determine that because is vehicle is being propelled it is therefore also being driven.)

Thus riding (=driving) a bike on road-side footpaths isn't allowed under the 1835 Highways Act, as Bicycler says a criminal act, but wheeling it is.

(Yes, pushing a car is driving it, while pushing a bike isn't driving. This is a quirk of the law.)

Re: Pushing a bike on a footpath.

27 October 2014 - 8:55pm
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

Re: Pushing a bike on a footpath.

27 October 2014 - 8:47pm
it would be interesting to enquire of the council if the signs are theirs or not? when I spoke of 2 signs I wasnt thinking of one at either end but the fact there are 2 one on each side of the road at the far end of the lane. I dont think I have seen that before, certainly not for hickville. Unless its a local parish council and some of the councillors live down there....

Re: Pushing a bike on a footpath.

27 October 2014 - 8:39pm
Mick F wrote:Yep, I agree too I suppose.
............ the OP was asking about pushing a bike, remember.

Yep, pushing it could be ok.
Just try pushing a car along a footpath.
What's the difference?
Let us just assume that pushing a bike is an act of trespass because it is not included in the normal right of passage down a footpath. That is a purely civil matter, it is not breaking a law. Propelling a motor vehicle down a footpath would also be a trespass but it is not a very good comparison because in the case of motor vehicles it is also a criminal offence.

Re: Pushing a bike on a footpath.

27 October 2014 - 8:38pm
Tonyf33 wrote:Woking Cycle group seem to have some sort of application in hand but local government is very very slow from reading, with other applications for other issues well in front (seemingly taking weeks if not months for each)
http://www.wokingcycle.org.uk/muddy-lane/
.

Thanks - I had thought that had been denied ; so can live in hope.

Re: Pushing a bike on a footpath.

27 October 2014 - 8:33pm
mercalia wrote:The no entry sign looks phoney. it seems to be on private land. I cant see the council putting up 2 no entry signs one on either side.
I think the no entry is the wrong sign to use?
Virtually all land is private. The council can regulate traffic travelling along any public highway (which this lane is). It is not uncommon to prohibit vehicles from using public footpaths as shortcuts. However, I agree with you that the signs (one at either end of the lane) seem unusual. I would normally expect to see "no vehicles" or "no motor vehicles" signs (maybe with "except for access" plates) if a TRO is in force

Re: Pushing a bike on a footpath.

27 October 2014 - 8:33pm
Mick F wrote:A bicycle is a vehicle.

You are not permitted to propel a vehicle along a public footpath.
You can carry it, but not push it, because pushing it is "propelling" it.


I wonder? I would think "propel" would have to be clearly defined in terms of how the vehicle is meant to be used n and not the degree of contact with the ground ( as is implied ) other wise what about if only one wheel just touches? or touches for 1 sec out of 2 lol

Re: Pushing a bike on a footpath.

27 October 2014 - 8:31pm
Yep, I agree too I suppose.
............ the OP was asking about pushing a bike, remember.

Yep, pushing it could be ok.
Just try pushing a car along a footpath.
What's the difference?

Re: Visibility: why are do so many riders in black

27 October 2014 - 8:26pm
It's all to do with what you do and when and where.
I wear a funny hat and mitts and bright clothing when I go out - like today on a blast of 40miles into the mist and rain and damp using main roads.

However, if I ride into the village maybe half a mile there and half a mile back along the lanes, I'll be wearing normal clothes, no gloves, no helmet, no eyewear, no special shoes, no safety lights.

Re: Pushing a bike on a footpath.

27 October 2014 - 8:23pm
To my knowledge you won't find case law to back up the assertion that a bicycle is not a 'usual accompaniment'. I imagine the opinion that it is not a 'usual accompaniment' stems from a bicycle being a carriage and a vehicle. There's no doubt in my mind that it remains an accompaniment whether you wheel it or carry it
I agree with Gaz on that one.

Re: Visibility: why are do so many riders in black

27 October 2014 - 8:18pm
Mick F wrote:I dress like a banana with a funny hat, plus wear mitts and have a mirror, plus have "visibility lights".
None of this can do any harm, and if it helps, that's good innit?
It can do harm... by helping to make cycling look like the sort of activity that is so dangerous it requires special protective clothing. We should join forces with walker safety organisations and reject this assault by motoring intersts.

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