Walking past No Entry Signs

General cycling advice ( NOT technical ! )
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Walking past No Entry Signs

Post by thirdcrank »

brooksby wrote: ... Is there a definition in law of "for access"?


If there is, I think it will be in the form of decided cases ie appeals usually by way of "case stated" to the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court. If so, it will be in (expensive) text books such as Wilkinson's. I've looked at the usual internet sources and I can't see anything other than when that supplementary plate may be used.

I think the short answer is that it will depend on the wording of the TRO which will be specific to that site depending on the circumstances. I think, for instance, that if there are legitimate destinations along the "no vehicles street" the TRO will list them.

I can't speak for other parts of the world but I don't remember much police enforcement: it's one of those cases where the highway authority tries to do something and it's only sporadically enforced if at all. No enforcement tends to mean no appeals. The situation is complicated by the flying motorbike being one of the most widely misunderstood signs on our roads.

This is now becoming more of an issue with the increase of situations like the one in your streetview where highway authorities are trying to keep private vehicles out of shopping centres and off bus routes. Some of the enforcement has now been decriminalised and passed to highway authorities in a similar way to the enforcement of yellow line parking and cameras are being used, much to the disgruntlement of the "can't touch you for it" faction. The main point is that as it's decriminalised, "innocent till proven guilty doesn't" apply. Once a penalty notice has been issued, the process inexorably trundles on until payment is received, the recipient of the notice successfully appeals or the bailiffs are instructed. There have been some well-publicised appeals which have been discussed on here, based on the confusion caused by the signs. I've not looked into it closely but it would be easy to conclude that the appeals tribunal (I can't remember the correct name) finds the flying motorbike sign confusing.
User avatar
The utility cyclist
Posts: 3607
Joined: 22 Aug 2016, 12:28pm
Location: The first garden city

Re: Walking past No Entry Signs

Post by The utility cyclist »

thirdcrank wrote:Vulnerable road users have an interest in a high standard of enforcement of road traffic legislation and I don't believe cyclists make their case any stronger by saying it should only apply to others.

They do say that the status of the pedal cycle as a vehicle was an important element of the CTC's efforts during the 20C to protect the rights of cyclists. I fear that the imminent introduction of autonomous vehicles is a risk that cyclists will be lumped in with pedestrians to keep them out of the road.

people on bikes are not only treated as bottom feeding sub species of 'road traffic' and are not given the rights and freedoms of the big fish (not even close), they should not have to conform to the same rules that are in place simply because of the propensity of a certain type to kill and maim with impunity.
thelawnet
Posts: 2736
Joined: 27 Aug 2010, 12:56am

Re: Walking past No Entry Signs

Post by thelawnet »

Apparently the charming chap who caused all of this put in an 11th hour (dated 20th May, for 22nd May Inquiry) submission saying that the subway under the M25 did not meet requirements being 2.3 metres high and 2 metres wide:

http://www.wokingcycle.org.uk/wp-conten ... 05-18_.pdf

The subway regulations are here:

http://www.wokingcycle.org.uk/wp-conten ... d3693_.pdf

and quite a lot of different numbers and rules and exceptions, however clearly not meeting those, with the argument being that this therefore makes it impossible for the Highways Agency to have dedicated the path as a bridleway.

And of course there is the issue of 'bridleway' and 'footpath', whereas 'cycle track' isn't a class of RoW, even though a bridleway may only in reality be used by cycles.

Anyway, the submission apparently threw the cat among the pigeons as presumably there wasn't time to analyse the issues, so everything had to be rescheduled at considerable expense, and what with the workings of planning/government being what they are the next Inquiry is scheduled for 6/7 February 2019.
User avatar
gaz
Posts: 14648
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent

Re: Walking past No Entry Signs

Post by gaz »

The design document linked is from 1993. It is possible that different standards existed at the time of construction, I don't know where to look for them.
Failing that perhaps some examples of sub-standard bridleway subways constructed around the same period would help. For starters you've got the whole of the M25 to check for something comparable.

I'm no expert, at this point I feel your best hope is that you have evidence of dedication by use for a relevant period before the M25 was constructed.
AndyK
Posts: 1498
Joined: 17 Aug 2007, 2:08pm
Location: Mid Hampshire

Re: Walking past No Entry Signs

Post by AndyK »

gaz wrote:The design document linked is from 1993. It is possible that different standards existed at the time of construction, I don't know where to look for them.


It so happens I have a copy of the previous standards, as I had to look into this for a public inquiry concerning Junction 9 of the M3. After much fruitless searching I eventually tried asking Highways England nicely! They sent me a scan of the relevant document, TD 3/79: “Combined Pedestrian and Cycle Subways Layout and Dimensions”.

For a combined pedestrian and cycle subway more than 23m long, it specifies the minimum internal height as 2.6m and the minimum internal width as 3.3m. So based on the landowner's measurements it appears this subway is too small to meet the pre-1993 standards. Happy to provide a copy if it's useful to anyone.

The standards are and were guidelines, and were not necessarily proof that the subway wasn't intended to be used as a cycle route: Highways England and its predecessors have often broken DfT standards. As the government inspector in our M3 case put it, "the guidance is not, as far as I can tell, mandatory. It is guidance - and there may be reasons why it might be necessary to depart from the ideal." So for what it''s worth, the bit of the landowner's letter that says "The HIghways Agency could therefore not have had legal capacity to grant bridleway rights... because of the deficient headroom and width" isn't true. However the substandard size does add weight to the landowner's case.

gaz wrote:I'm no expert, at this point I feel your best hope is that you have evidence of dedication by use for a relevant period before the M25 was constructed.


Something else I learnt from the M3 experience: If the subway itself belongs to Highways England, the argument of "dedication by use" under section 31 of the Highways Act is not sufficient, as Section 31 doesn't apply to Crown land. Instead common law applies, and that requires evidence that the landowner (Department of Transport under its various names) intended to dedicate the land for this use.

I've just looked on the online version of the Surrey County Council definitive rights-of-way map. Muddy Lane appears as a footpath (not a bridleway).

In short, I fear it may be a lost cause.
thelawnet
Posts: 2736
Joined: 27 Aug 2010, 12:56am

Re: Walking past No Entry Signs

Post by thelawnet »

AndyK wrote:I've just looked on the online version of the Surrey County Council definitive rights-of-way map. Muddy Lane appears as a footpath (not a bridleway).

In short, I fear it may be a lost cause.


The lane has been in use for many centuries, including by horse riders, as it connects Wisley Church (1150) with St Mary's Church, Byfleet (built in the 1300s). In fact at one time there was also motorised traffic over the road, until the construction of the M25.

The council submitted a 'map modification order', which is not a change of status so much as a correction.

Clearly there are many paths over which there was customary use by horse riders that have been dedicated as 'footpath' on the maps.

It is not clear to me that a path used for centuries by horse riders over which an inadequate subway has been constructed, should lose its centuries-old status as a bridleway
User avatar
Graham
Moderator
Posts: 6489
Joined: 14 Dec 2006, 8:48pm

Re: Walking past No Entry Signs

Post by Graham »

thelawnet wrote:It is not clear to me that a path used for centuries by horse riders over which an inadequate subway has been constructed, should lose its centuries-old status as a bridleway

I am spotting a bit of a pattern with this regarding inadequate provision by Highways persons undertaking major works.

The Petersfield dual-carriageway bypass was constructed 25+ years ago. To the west of the town three footpaths were intersected by the new road.

The railway alongside was constructed, long ago, with underpasses for each of these RoWs.

The road has no underpasses/bridges for these RoWs - relying instead on breaks in the central reservation crash barriers for ad hoc crossing @ surface-level.

Due to vehicle speeds and traffic volumes, these RoWs are now uncrossable.
I did manage a token-gesture crossing last winter, but only because heavy snow had cleared the roads of traffic.

Does it matter ??
I think so. Each of these RoWs would help walkers / runners from the town to get directly to Butser hill.
The current alternatives are longer and relatively unpleasant.
EDIT :
To me it does highlight the difficulty of forecasting the future and how to best cater for the widest range of possibilities.
Around the time that road was built, the cultural assumptions appeared to be :-
- Everyone wants to travel everywhere by motor vehicle . . and this should be provided for.
- Walking & running for leisure, exercise, fun is of no importance, thus not "cost-justified" to provide for it.
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Walking past No Entry Signs

Post by thirdcrank »

Perhaps one of the main points here is that historically, rights of way were not fixed, but rather adapted with usage. This is the basis on which new rights have been established. The flipside must be that if they were not used, then the rights disappeared. That's been modified to some extent with the introduction of definitive maps which don't appear by magic.
thelawnet
Posts: 2736
Joined: 27 Aug 2010, 12:56am

Re: Walking past No Entry Signs

Post by thelawnet »

thirdcrank wrote:Perhaps one of the main points here is that historically, rights of way were not fixed, but rather adapted with usage. This is the basis on which new rights have been established. The flipside must be that if they were not used, then the rights disappeared.


Well, no. A public right of way that is not used does not stop being a public right of way.

"Mere disuse of a highway cannot deprive the public of their rights. Where there has once been a highway no length of time during which it may not have been used will preclude the public from resuming the exercise of the right to use it if and when they think proper"
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Walking past No Entry Signs

Post by thirdcrank »

I'm not suggesting there's anything automatic about this, quite the opposite, but without definitive maps, everything is open to legal challenge. If a landowner interferes with what others believe to be a right of way, ultimately, court action is the only way to resolve it.
AndyK
Posts: 1498
Joined: 17 Aug 2007, 2:08pm
Location: Mid Hampshire

Re: Walking past No Entry Signs

Post by AndyK »

thelawnet wrote:
The council submitted a 'map modification order', which is not a change of status so much as a correction.

Sorry, missed that. It's a good point, and one that many people misunderstand. A map modification order isn't saying "we want to create a bridleway", it's saying "we acknowledge that a bridleway already exists but it's been omitted from the definitive map and we are now correcting that oversight."

However surely the key to this is the subway? Without that the rest of the route is useless anyway. As that, according to the landowner's letter, is Crown land, there still needs to be evidence that the Crown (ie the Secretary of State for Transport) intended to create a bridleway.

It looks like there were several public inquiries into that stretch of the M25 before construction, so there's a fair chance this particular lane's status was discussed in those. If it was previously recognised as a right of way (old OS maps mark it as a "FP" which isn't conclusive but suggests it may have been) then it would almost certainly have come up. That'll mean some research work in the county archives.
thelawnet
Posts: 2736
Joined: 27 Aug 2010, 12:56am

Re: Walking past No Entry Signs

Post by thelawnet »

AndyK wrote:It looks like there were several public inquiries into that stretch of the M25 before construction, so there's a fair chance this particular lane's status was discussed in those. If it was previously recognised as a right of way (old OS maps mark it as a "FP" which isn't conclusive but suggests it may have been) then it would almost certainly have come up. That'll mean some research work in the county archives.


There's more information here

https://mycouncil.surreycc.gov.uk/docum ... 0FINAL.pdf

There are apparently numerous maps from the 1700s showing the road as permitting wheeled traffic.

It doesn't seem to me that the construction of a substandard subway in the 1960s would do anything to extinguish a long-standing right of way.
User avatar
gaz
Posts: 14648
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent

Re: Walking past No Entry Signs

Post by gaz »

On 22nd July 2019, Mark Yeats an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs confirmed the Muddy Lane Map Modification Order.

This means that Muddy Lane is now a bridleway and can be used by cyclists.

https://elmbridgecycle.org/ (post 08/08/2019).
High on a cocktail of flossy teacakes and marmalade
drossall
Posts: 6115
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 10:01pm
Location: North Hertfordshire

Re: Walking past No Entry Signs

Post by drossall »

mattsccm wrote:I can think of at least 2 local examples where green lanes, in these cases unclassified roads, pop out into the middle of a village that has 30 mph signs at the point of entry on the only through road that is tarmacked. Motorised vehicles can thus legal reach the middle of the village with no indication that there might be a speed limit. Both villages are small and have no repeater signs and indeed no other way that may even give any hint of a restriction.

Any street lighting?
mattsccm
Posts: 5101
Joined: 28 Nov 2009, 9:44pm

Re: Walking past No Entry Signs

Post by mattsccm »

Nope
Post Reply