Griff Rhys Jones Vs “yob" cyclists takes a twist; What the… 'CycloCrocs’!!?; Daily Mail's Andrew Pierce has cycle lane meltdown; New Canyon Grail; Storm Francis turns Cycleways to rivers; Pacman ride + more on the live blog

A bicycle is not something that would be taken with you when going for a walk.  There is a thing in highways known as a usual accompaniment, a thing that a reasonable person would expect to be taken with a person using a highway of whatever status.  It would be normal to take a baby carriage of some description or a dog when going for a walk but not a bicycle or a horse. 

spen wrote:

A bicycle is not something that would be taken with you when going for a walk.  There is a thing in highways known as a usual accompaniment, a thing that a reasonable person would expect to be taken with a person using a highway of whatever status.  It would be normal to take a baby carriage of some description or a dog when going for a walk but not a bicycle or a horse. 

The same thing was raised about someone walking across a pedestrian crossing whilst pushing a bicycle, and the judge decided that the bicycle was irrelevant, and the person pushing the bicycle was a pedestrian.

What if you're only 'going for a walk' because the designation of a path requires you to? There are dozens of Bridleways that suddenly turn into footpaths, sometimes at a field boundary or parish/county boundary. One that springs to mind is the bridleway from Conistone in Wharfedale to Sandy Gate (NP & CP Boundary) where it turns into a footpath before continuing to Middlesmoor and Lofthouse in Nidderdale. Or where the only link between two stretches of bridleway is a footpath.

I did come across the notion of 'usual accompaniment' on discussions about access to paths on the Bingley Bash where a landowner was refusing access to even dismounted cyclists. But what if I'm walking from my house to my place of work with a length of timber ,say, over my shoulder. Hardly a 'usual accompaniment' but not unreasonable

Cycling UK has useful articles on the subject:

https://www.cyclinguk.org/article/campaigns-guide/cycling-on-footpath-tr...

Time for access to be standardised along Scottish and Welsh lines.

As somebody up the comments said..."you might as well just ride your bike"

pockstone wrote:

Time for access to be standardised along Scottish and Welsh lines.

As somebody up the comments said..."you might as well just ride your bike"

The Land Reform Act of 2003 Scotland usually described as the Right to Roam has been very successful.

I have never understood how there is such little momentum in England for something similar. 

I'd wonder what the gradient is, and the quality of the surface.

I don't think I have ever hit such incredible speeds even on long road descents, not even in my youth on my "racers".

Of course on such a huge hill you only have to worry about high speeds going down, others will be crawling up.

ktache wrote:

I don't think I have ever hit such incredible speeds even on long road descents, not even in my youth on my "racers".

There is a strava segment past his house. The fastest rider clocked 24.2 mph between his backdoor and garage block. (blurred image for privacy)

HoarseMann wrote:

ktache wrote:

I don't think I have ever hit such incredible speeds even on long road descents, not even in my youth on my "racers".

There is a strava segment past his house. The fastest rider clocked 24.2 mph between his backdoor and garage block. (blurred image for privacy)

Why let fact get in the way of tripe. Griff is a knob. He objected to a solar farm being erected near his place, but it's fine to have Sizewell C on our coast.

maviczap wrote:

HoarseMann wrote:

ktache wrote:

I don't think I have ever hit such incredible speeds even on long road descents, not even in my youth on my "racers".

There is a strava segment past his house. The fastest rider clocked 24.2 mph between his backdoor and garage block. (blurred image for privacy)

Why let fact get in the way of tripe. Griff is a knob. He objected to a solar farm being erected near his place, but it's fine to have Sizewell C on our coast.

I don't doubt he's being a knob about this. 24 mph is not 40, he's over-egging that, and all the crap about lycra stereotypes shows him up. He has a point that some are riding too quickly, but it's likely to be a very small number. He would do much better to put up a sign that says 'cycling allowed, by permission of landowner, please slow to walking pace past houses'.

Yes but dont forget his complaint is largely borne out of trying to limit what access rights that path has to the public, because it goes through his garden,if he tacitly approves considerate cycle access,its harder to legally challenge then if it were to be made into an off road traffic free cycle route.

And Ive always remembered being moaned at by a group of people for cycling too fast on a shared path, as I was stationary because I'd completely stopped at least 5 metres away from them and was patiently waiting to let them pass...there is no speed to some people that is acceptable for cyclists to do.

Awavey wrote:

Yes but dont forget his complaint is largely borne out of trying to limit what access rights that path has to the public, because it goes through his garden,if he tacitly approves considerate cycle access,its harder to legally challenge then if it were to be made into an off road traffic free cycle route. And Ive always remembered being moaned at by a group of people for cycling too fast on a shared path, as I was stationary because I'd completely stopped at least 5 metres away from them and was patiently waiting to let them pass...there is no speed to some people that is acceptable for cyclists to do.

There's no way he could challenge the path that runs past his house. It's a proper public footpath. The bit that is not, is a very short section at the very bottom of his land where the parish boundary intersects the path. It's most likely this was always a right of way, but got missed off the definitive map. There are many examples of RoW that end abruptly at a parish/county boundary, but exist as a path on the ground. Ideally, someone local should put in a request with the council to have it adopted as a right of way. I think there would be a very strong case. He is being a real NIMBY, which is sad, as he has a back yard bigger than most.

I did get to 40 yers ago in Dorset. Didn't find out until I started the climb the otherside. I think I was very glad of my ignorance on the downhill.

well arguably it is nearer a bridleway than a footpath in style and probably would be made officialy one if it didnt cross Gruff Rhys' land and spoil his view, its a coastal route path thats been there for longer than such distinctions of exactitude in desgination ever existed.

so there hasnt been a new twist in the story anyway,not in the way people might think at least,as way back in the original Daily Mail article the guidance Suffolk Highways dept gave was exactly the same, "cycling on a public footpath is a trespass and is therefore a matter for the owner of the land upon which the highway sits to address", so the EADT is just repeating that story whilst being somewhat late to it, and repeating it probably because at the moment cycling stories generate clicks & ad revenues for them as their predominantly motorist obsessed readership frequently object to people riding bikes around on two wheels

I wasn't focusing in this specific path, but the general claim that it is not an offence to cycle on a footpath. I've just recalled that on a Jane's walk, some footpath bloke from Herts CC told us that it was an offence to push a bike on a footpath.

See also http://www.environmentlaw.org.uk/rte.asp?id=207

In a previous discussion the ever so knowwledgable Jitensha Oni brought up that there is a specific by law in Surrey that it is an offence to push a bicycle on a public footpath.  He even gave a link to it.

He hasn't posted for a while.

Here you go:

<<Public footpaths are waymarked using yellow arrows

Only walkers may use these routes. You may take a dog provided it is under close control. If the path is suitable, a pram or pushchair may also be taken. You must not push, carry or use a bicycle on a footpath.>>

From here:

https://www.surreycc.gov.uk/land-planning-and-development/countryside/fo...

Well done for finding that, though it was the By Law that Jitensha Oni found.  I think it could be fairly unique to Surrey, 

Of course, and it took me a couple of weeks of internal conjecture to figure it out, when I told a colleague, his responce was instant "Might as well cycle on it then!"

I ride in Surrey as that is where my place of work is, (though I live in Berkshire, on the Oxfordshire side of the Thames, but Oxfordshire didn't want anything to do with Caversham, get of the train in Hampshire  and end up in Surrey, all 3 meet in the middle of the weird Meadows roundabout) and put every effort into sticking to bridleways and places where I am allowed to ride.  Some permissive byways I think.

No basis in law.

kevvjj wrote:

Here you go:

<<Public footpaths are waymarked using yellow arrows

Only walkers may use these routes. You may take a dog provided it is under close control. If the path is suitable, a pram or pushchair may also be taken. You must not push, carry or use a bicycle on a footpath.>>

From here:

https://www.surreycc.gov.uk/land-planning-and-development/countryside/fo...

I'm not sure that Surrey guidance is actually law, it seems to also preclude wheelchairs and mobility scooters - which is not correct.

https://www.gov.uk/right-of-way-open-access-land/use-public-rights-of-way

Well, they don't specifically exclude wheelchairs and mobility scooters, and they don't actually define what 'walkers' are, so I guess they could claim that they include them in the term.

Also, though

Quote:

You must not push, carry or use a bicycle

so if you trail it behind you, you should be OK.

kevvjj wrote:

Here you go:

<<Public footpaths are waymarked using yellow arrows

Only walkers may use these routes. You may take a dog provided it is under close control. If the path is suitable, a pram or pushchair may also be taken. You must not push, carry or use a bicycle on a footpath.>>

From here:

https://www.surreycc.gov.uk/land-planning-and-development/countryside/fo...

 

what if I carry 2 frames, and my mate carries 4 wheels?