Cycling UK Forum

Again, you are confusing access rights with usable infrastructure. The two concepts are different.

There are rights of way up Lake District summits, across high mountain passes, and moors and other wild places that have no path or track or followable line on the ground. And nor would it be desirable to create tracks across these places. It is important that we have the right to go there to explore these places without the need to pave them.

rualexander wrote: ↑2 Apr 2024, 6:59pm Did the cyclist crash into the open car door or did the car driver/passenger open their door into the cyclist's path?

The former.

To get over the polarised nature that these debates often descend into, it is useful to imagine the roles reversed.
A report of a close passing motorist crashes into a cyclist that had ridden round a pothole. How much time would you have for someone asking the question "Did the car crash into the cyclist or did the cyclist ride into the car drivers path?"

And if you can't avoid a car door then you would not be able to avoid a child stepping out from behind that car. Again this is not something we would accept as an excuse if a motorist did it. It is not as if keeping clear of parked vehicles is some sort of advanced cycling technique - it is in the very basics as taught to primary school kids at Bikeability level 2.

Not really.

What you are describing probably already IS a bridleway (by virtue of the habitual use recorded on Strava), It is just that the local authority have not yet got round to classifying it as such. They are unlikely to unless a local mountain biker approaches them an requests a reclassification, or the landowner attempts to obstruct cyclists, and the cyclists are motivated to enforce their right in the courts (as in the case in the Lake District referred to upthread).

In terms of establishing rights of way, mountain bikers are pretty much where ramblers were in the 1950s. While we now take them for granted, many footpaths were established back then by the RA fighting legal battles and collecting evidence of use of the routes. Back then mountain biking wasn't a thing, and it was only fairly recently that cyclists became designated users of bridleways, pretty much as an afterthought. However, the sort of things that horse riders might use do not necessarily correspond well to useful routes for cyclists, and many routes designated as public footpaths do. One advantage cyclists have is that many cyclists record and publish their routes on Strava and the like - so it is much easier to collect evidence of continuous habitual usage - Whereas the ramblers of the last century had to find ancient locals to give evidence that they walked a path decades earlier.

jgurney wrote: ↑12 Mar 2024, 10:51pm You are both right. A route being a public footpath does not create any reason to suppose that cycling is allowed there, and neither does it of itself mean that cycling there would be an unlawful act.

Indeed, the way that rights of way are established in the first place is by habitual use of the route.
If your starting point is to assume that people are not allowed to go places where there is no right of way then there would be no rights of way at all and we would all be confined within the boundaries of our own property.

drossall wrote: ↑12 Mar 2024, 10:15pm

Pete Owens wrote: ↑12 Mar 2024, 10:04pmBut just because a route is designated as a public footpath does not mean of itself that cycling is illegal. For that you need explicit no cycling signs.

I'm not sure I understand this. As I see it, if a route is designated as a public footpath, there is no more reason to believe that cycling is allowed than for cutting across a random field where no rights of way are designated at all.

If you don't understand then imagine the opposite case - The government enacts a law hat makes it illegal to go anywhere that is not explicitly a right of way. (and I wouldn't put it past the current lot to attempt to outlaw trespass) So from tomorrow:

You want to visit your local park - not a right of way - illegal.
You want to visit a shop in a private arcade - not a right of way - illegal.
You want to cross a car park to reach a supermarket - not a right of way - illegal.
You want to stroll across your housing estate on purpose built paved paths - not rights of way - illegal.
You want to ride along the Bristol-Bath cycleway - not a right of way - illegal.
You want to walk along a beach, go rock climbing, go caving... not rights of way - illegal.
You want to ride on a forest track - not a right of way - illegal.

Now you are not accessing any of these places by right. The council may close the park at night or for a special event, the arcade might be locked outside shopping hours, a landowner may charge to visit a cave or a waterfall, they might bar access to the forest track with a locked gate, on a public footpath there may be stiles or kissing gates that are impassable on a bike. But the absence of a right does not of itself mean a prohibition.

As usual with these debates there is a confusion between lack of rights and prohibitions.
And also between public rights of way and useable paths, tracks and the like.

A public right of way only means that the public is allowed as of right to traverse the route -
On foot - on a public footpath
Plus on horse or bike on a public bridleway
Plus with a horse drawn vehicle or a restricted byway
Plus in motor vehicle on a byway open to all traffic (BOAT)

But that is all it means - the line of a PRoW may not correspond to the line of a path on the ground, or there may not be any trace on the ground at all. The route may not even be passable(I certainly would strongly advise anyone against attempting to ride a bike on one of the rights of way crossing Morecambe Bay even if they are legally entitled to do so as of right). The only thing you can expect is that the landowner cannot obstruct your passage, with a locked gate for example, or provide a stile on a vehicular right of way.

The absence of a right of way does not mean a route is prohibited. A motorable road may be designated as a public footpath and many paths, tracks and so on are not designated as any form of right of way at all. The landowner may choose to prohibit access by placing signs
or locked gates and so on. But just because a route is designated as a public footpath does not mean of itself that cycling is illegal. For that you need explicit no cycling signs.

Then we come to pavements (or footways in the legal sense). These should not be confused with footpaths. Here a footway as part of a larger highway reserved for the exclusive use of pedestrians. Here cycling IS illegal unless a highway authority explicitly designates it as shared use and puts up blue signs.

Then there are purpose built cycleways, greenways and the like. These are intended for cycle use, but are rarely designated as rights of way. No one is going to stop you using them but since your use is not a right they can be closed at any time if the landowner decided they wanted to.

The only difference between a restricted byway and a bridleway is that the right of way extends to horse drawn vehicles. Again the only obligation on the landowner is that they cannot prohibit or obstruct such access. There is no positive duty to facilitate access.

Go another step up to byway open to all traffic (BOAT). This means you are legally permitted to drive a motor vehicle, but don't assume that the routes is suitable for anything other than a serious all-terrain vehicle.

It is a bridleway - ie a public right of way for horse traffic. The only obligation on the Landowner is not to obstruct the passage of horses (and if a horse can pass so can a bicycle). There is no positive requirement to provide a surfaced path or indeed a path of any sort - just that any fences and walls crossing the route need to be provided with gates rather than stiles (which would be the case for a public footpath).

Taker a look at an OS map of the lake district and you will see that most of the high mountain passes have designated bridleways over them

And it is not just Rachel Aldred.- whos conclusion on the merits of LTNs could be predicted before any data was collected in the same way you just know the Highways Agency would find massive value in any proposed road scheme.

The official government study commissioned by Sunak - hoping to support his case for stopping LTNs - also found them to be popular and effective.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/20 ... unak-finds
No surprise that the government attempted to block publication.

Adrian Chiles in the Guardian - "A 20mph speed limit seemed unfeasible – until I learned to love pootling along":
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ling-along

Just the same as for zebra crossings. The intent is the same as it always was it was just that the sign that you were intending to cross was indicated by sicking your toe across the kerb.

The weird thing is that there was no change to the HC re pedestrians at junctions. It has always been the case that you should stop for pedestrians crossing side roads.

But if there is no explicit pedestrian stage them pedestrians are simply not catered for. The all red stage gives just enough time for N-S traffic (including those turning left and right) to clear the junction before E-W traffic is given a green. And if any vehicles are waiting to turn right then they will continue well into the all red stage. So there is no time at all in the sequence when motors cannot use the lanes exiting the junction to allow pedestrians to cross.

ALL signal controlled junctions must have an all red stage after every green stage - even if this is as simple as a pelican crossing or a cross roads where non-motorised traffic is prohibited. A road user (whether on foot or cycle or motor) may enter the crossing a microsecond before their signal changes to red so the signal for conflicting traffic cannot turn green until some time later to allow that user to clear the junction. All that is changing in Dusseldorf is to make that period long enough for all users. It is getting the basic design right, not some ploy to make life difficult for drivers as implied by the headline.

The all red phase is not a facility for pedestrians (though at older junctions in the UK without any provision at all for pedestrians you have to try to dash across between stages). I think you are thinking of SOME states in the US where drivers are allowed to turn right through red lights but must yield to pedestrians. In Germany there will be separate signals for pedestrians - and unlike the UK pedestrians can be prosecuted for crossing on the red signal.

Bmblbzzz wrote: ↑1 Feb 2024, 11:03am

plancashire wrote: ↑31 Jan 2024, 8:40pm A change to the traffic regulations (StVO) in 2017 made the lights for motor traffic, not those for pedestrians, apply to people on bikes, unless there were special bike lights. That means that junctions with no bike lights must allow more time at the end of the green phase for people on bikes to cross. Waiting traffic at red must wait longer.

I'm having trouble visualising this.

Just think of pretty much any bog standard set of traffic lights.

Under current regs the all red phase is calculated on the basis that vehicles proceed through the junction at about 20 mph. This means for large junctions cyclists do not have time to clear a junction (most noticeable at large junctions) before conflicting traffic gets a green light.
Under current regs the pedestrian stage is calculated assuming pedestrians are capable of a brisk waking pace. This means that older or infirm pedestrians do not have time to cross before vehicles get a green light.

What Dusseldorf is doing is increasing the all-red stages so that all users are catered for, rather than just the fastest. How on earth it is thought reasonable to do anything other than that is beyond me. And note it is not only car drivers that must wait longer, but everybody.