Search found 2431 matches

by Pete Owens
12 Mar 2024, 10:04pm
Forum: Campaigning & Public Policy
Topic: Filthy bridleway
Replies: 56
Views: 2120

Re: Filthy bridleway

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.
by Pete Owens
9 Mar 2024, 4:49pm
Forum: Campaigning & Public Policy
Topic: Filthy bridleway
Replies: 56
Views: 2120

Re: Filthy bridleway

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.
by Pete Owens
8 Mar 2024, 6:08pm
Forum: Campaigning & Public Policy
Topic: Filthy bridleway
Replies: 56
Views: 2120

Re: Filthy bridleway

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
by Pete Owens
8 Mar 2024, 5:56pm
Forum: Campaigning & Public Policy
Topic: LTN politics
Replies: 53
Views: 3183

Re: LTN politics

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.
by Pete Owens
22 Feb 2024, 10:32am
Forum: Campaigning & Public Policy
Topic: Default 20mph for Wales
Replies: 574
Views: 553123

Re: Default 20mph for Wales

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
by Pete Owens
14 Feb 2024, 3:05pm
Forum: Campaigning & Public Policy
Topic: Feedback : 2 year old law junctions
Replies: 623
Views: 35988

Re: Feedback : 2 year old law junctions

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.
by Pete Owens
13 Feb 2024, 8:30pm
Forum: Campaigning & Public Policy
Topic: Feedback : 2 year old law junctions
Replies: 623
Views: 35988

Re: Feedback : 2 year old law junctions

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.
by Pete Owens
9 Feb 2024, 4:08pm
Forum: Campaigning & Public Policy
Topic: Why car drivers must wait longer at red traffic lights in Düsseldorf
Replies: 16
Views: 1115

Re: Why car drivers must wait longer at red traffic lights in Düsseldorf

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.
by Pete Owens
2 Feb 2024, 11:13pm
Forum: Campaigning & Public Policy
Topic: Why car drivers must wait longer at red traffic lights in Düsseldorf
Replies: 16
Views: 1115

Re: Why car drivers must wait longer at red traffic lights in Düsseldorf

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.
by Pete Owens
1 Feb 2024, 9:43pm
Forum: Campaigning & Public Policy
Topic: Why car drivers must wait longer at red traffic lights in Düsseldorf
Replies: 16
Views: 1115

Re: Why car drivers must wait longer at red traffic lights in Düsseldorf

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.
by Pete Owens
16 Jan 2024, 11:31am
Forum: Campaigning & Public Policy
Topic: Oxford quickways
Replies: 68
Views: 10938

Re: Oxford quickways and greenways

Jdsk wrote: 15 Jan 2024, 5:06pm "Oxford Greenways cycling networks project approved":
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-o ... e-67960899
1. An unfortunate choice of photo.
2. £106k is not going to go very far.
by Pete Owens
2 Dec 2023, 2:33pm
Forum: Campaigning & Public Policy
Topic: Compulsory hi-viz before work
Replies: 26
Views: 2678

Re: Compulsory hi-viz before work

Pinhead wrote: 2 Dec 2023, 11:36am Clearly states "Lorries, cars, pedestrians forklifts" so what is the problem
The problem is is the obvious discriminatory nature of the injection.

IF there was a genuine hazard that required the use of hi-viz in a particular area then that should apply to everybody entering that area - not just those who happen to arrive by a particular mode of transport.

IF there is a hazard in a particular area sufficient to require PPE then that area should be fenced and access restricted to only those who need to enter it where they are issued with appropriate PPE. Cycle parking should be relocated to a safe place.

This has all the hallmarks of an anti-cycling manager who thinks cyclists ought to wear hi-viz using H&S as a pretext.
by Pete Owens
19 Nov 2023, 4:53pm
Forum: On the road
Topic: Temp. traffic lights.
Replies: 37
Views: 4606

Re: Temp. traffic lights.

It is not just temporary traffic lights it is ALL traffic lights.

The formula used to calculate the gap between conflicting green stages assumes a vehicle speed of 20mph.
by Pete Owens
7 Nov 2023, 4:44pm
Forum: Campaigning & Public Policy
Topic: Government appears set to prevent active travel
Replies: 81
Views: 17603

Re: Government appears set to prevent active travel

Well it looks as if none of this has made it to the Kings speech - so there will be no laws stopping councils from implementing 20 mph limits or LTNs. I guess there will be no central government funding for the next year - but nothing o tie the hands of the next administration.
by Pete Owens
31 Oct 2023, 6:05pm
Forum: Campaigning & Public Policy
Topic: A55 Llanairfechan to Bangor - is cycling banned?
Replies: 6
Views: 2499

Re: A55 Llanairfechan to Bangor - is cycling banned?

The special road section is east of Conwy through Colwyn Bay. Cycling has ben banned for as long as I can remember, probably since the road was constructed. You can tell it is a special road because of the 70mph signs (rather than NSL) - and the prohibition sign is clear:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/LLYvXCo6HxUVnuB86
The special road was extended through the Conwy tunnel when that was constructed 30 years ago, but only as far as Llanddulas:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/W8bhKJqNf1x8XUG66

The section referred to in that thread from 2009 is the stretch west of Conwy where the old road wound around sea cliffs at the Pen y Clip headland. When it was dualled back in the 1990s the eastbound carriageway followed the old road and cyclists have always been allowed to use it. The west bound carriageway goes through a long tunnel from which cyclists are banned: Far from the ban being made possible by a Sustrans path, it took 15 years of campaigning for a route to be put in place for west bound cyclists. You can rejoin the A55 here:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/o1v8BQvS1Eiefvz48
and continue west on the carriageway towards Llanfairfechan.

The signs at Llanfairfechan are much more recent.