Sustrans new direction or the same old?

[Philip Benstead]

It may not conform to Equality Act 2010 CHAPTER 15
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/201 ... 015_en.pdf

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/discr ... ed-people/
See

29 Provision of services, etc.

(1) A person (a “service-provider”) concerned with the provision of a service to the public or a section of the public (for payment or not) must not discriminate against a person requiring the service by not providing the person with the service.

(2) A service-provider (A) must not, in providing the service, discriminate against a person (B)—
(a) as to the terms on which A provides the service to B; (b) by terminating the provision of the service to B;
(c) by subjecting B to any other detriment.

(3) A service-provider must not, in relation to the provision of the service, harass—
(a) a person requiring the service, or
(b) a person to whom the service-provider provides the service.

(4) A service-provider must not victimise a person requiring the service by not providing the person with the service.

(5) A service-provider (A) must not, in providing the service, victimise a person
(B)—
(a) as to the terms on which A provides the service to B;

(b) by terminating the provision of the service to B; (c) by subjecting B to any other detriment.

(6) A person must not, in the exercise of a public function that is not the provision of a service to the public or a section of the public, do anything that constitutes discrimination, harassment or victimisation.

(7) A duty to make reasonable adjustments applies to— (a) a service-provider (and see also section 55(7));
(b) a person who exercises a public function that is not the provision of a service to the public or a section of the public.

(8) In the application of section 26 for the purposes of subsection (3), and subsection (6) as it relates to harassment, neither of the following is a relevant protected characteristic—
(a) religion or belief; (b) sexual orientation.

(9) In the application of this section, so far as relating to race or religion or belief, to the granting of entry clearance (within the meaning of the Immigration Act
1971), it does not matter whether an act is done within or outside the United
Kingdom.

(10) Subsection (9) does not affect the application of any other provision of this Act to conduct outside England and Wales or Scotland.

[gaz]

We have discussed the Equality Act as a way to remove such barriers before. My own view is here.

I look forward to the (eventual) opening of the cycletrack in the sure and certain knowledge that there will then be a K-frame to fail to keep the motorcycles out .

[Labrat]

Pass all the Orders you like. If you can't upgrade it to the required width and surface standard, it won't be opened .

That's my point, there is no 'required' width or surface standard, for a cycle track, even less so for a bridleway - it's entirely made up by people demanding NCN specifications' as set out in Sustrans guidelines

[gaz]

Not really. There is no obligation on the local authority to maintain a bridleway to a suitable standard for cycling.

Pass a Cycletracks Act order and its a Highway, with all the construction and ongoing maintenance obligations that come with it.

[Philip Benstead]

I belived there a legal requirement to keep bw to a width of 2 metres

[pwa]

That gate is clearly a pedestrian kissing gate with no intention of cycle access. It appears not to be intended as a cycle facility so it would be silly to criticise it as such. The question is, of course, what the obstacle to the creation of a cycle route is. Money, presumably. Until that transformation happens I can understand the landowner wanting to prevent cycle access that could lead to legal claims if people have accidents on unimproved bits of track. That bit seems logical.

[gaz]

I was disappointed to see the new gate as there is a clear intention to make future provision for cyclists, for now it remains just a footpath. If anyone wants to make an issue of it they can, I'll keep working for the confirmation of the cycletrack orders despite the inevitability of an accompanying K-frame.

More irritating was the introduction of a horse stile on a stretch of Bridleway that is also NCN and an Explore Kent cycle route. Installed to discourage motorcycle use it's since been by-passed by the removal of adjacent vegetation. KCC say there's nothing they can do, they have the powers to install the barrier on the path but not to do any work on the adjacent land.

It's hardly worth a challenge as there were already two horse stiles on the next stretch of the route in the Medway unitary authority area.

I belived there a legal requirement to keep bw to a width of 2 metres

If you have a link to any such legislation please post it on the thread. Whenever I've searched for a legal minimum width for a bridleway I have failed to find one, although once I thought I had stumbled upon one with respect to headroom which I have since been unable to locate again.

There are certainly "typical" figures but all I can recall finding on-line is a need to consult the statement accompanying the definitive map for each bridleway on a path by path and authority by authority basis.

[Vorpal]

I belived there a legal requirement to keep bw to a width of 2 metres

AFAIK, there are no legal requirements, only guidelines.

Unless a cycle facility is contructed along a highway subject to DMRB (e.g. a footway/shared use facility on a trunk road), in which case they are legally obligated to follow DMRB. Unfortunately, whilst DMRB does have minimum width requirements for various things, cycle tracks and paths are not included in that. The bits on cycle infrastructure have lots of wiggle words.

[gaz]

Rumour has it that the next edition of DMRB will have far less wiggle room: http://www.aldercross.com/cms/uploads/S ... Parkin.pdf

[MikeF]

I belived there a legal requirement to keep bw to a width of 2 metres

My knowledge on this is a bit rusty and never was complete anyway. However I suspect that the width of the BW is stated in the Definitive Statement that accompanies each BW on the Definitive Map. It will be variable, but as defined in the Definitive Statement. However if there is a new BW or even one that is "modified" because of say an adjacent housing estate, or upgraded from a public footpath, I think the width has to be 2 metres. Perhaps someone can correct me if I'm wrong.

[Labrat]

I belived there a legal requirement to keep bw to a width of 2 metres

My knowledge on this is a bit rusty and never was complete anyway. However I suspect that the width of the BW is stated in the Definitive Statement that accompanies each BW on the Definitive Map. It will be variable, but as defined in the Definitive Statement. However if there is a new BW or even one that is "modified" because of say an adjacent housing estate, or upgraded from a public footpath, I think the width has to be 2 metres. Perhaps someone can correct me if I'm wrong.

No, the two metres thing comes from the required minimum width of route retained/reinstated in a Bridleway across a ploughed field - only applies to this circumstance, not a general rule.

there is non-statutory guidance that new orders should specify a width = advice note 16.https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... l_2016.pdf

[thirdcrank]

... It's a pity that many can't see past shonky cycle routes to the other stuff that sustrans does these days, ....

The pity is that the people who can't see past shonky cycle routes are very often local councillors and highways department officers who think that shonky cycle routes are just the job and these people are not slow to shelter behind Sustrans, even when they are being economical with the actuality.

A let's-move-on exhortation to grumpy old gits like me, blinkered by our Carradice Longflaps misses the point that highway "improvements" last for decades.

[pwa]

... It's a pity that many can't see past shonky cycle routes to the other stuff that sustrans does these days, ....

The pity is that the people who can't see past shonky cycle routes are very often local councillors and highways department officers who think that shonky cycle routes are just the job and these people are not slow to shelter behind Sustrans, even when they are being economical with the actuality.

A let's-move-on exhortation to grumpy old gits like me, blinkered by our Carradice Longflaps misses the point that highway "improvements" last for decades.

I'm not denying that Local Authorities often have dodgy facilities, but I have inspected cycle facilities with a Highways official who did not conform to that image. He was with me inspecting a chicane type obstacle designed to keep motorcycles from accessing a nature reserve via a shared use path. His main concern was that the existing chicane might be a problem for some disabled users. He explained that he worked from first principles and asked himself, firstly, whether an obstacle was needed at all. In this case there was a severe motorcycle problem, so he went for an A-frame that would let in mobility scooters. As hoped, it did deter motorcycle use. Not 100% of course, but its presence did allow locals to remonstrate with motorcyclists and tell them the path was clearly not intended for them. My point, though, is that the Highways official had disabled users very much in mind. He saw obstacles as compromises and not ideal.

[mjr]

Why did they need to obstruct CYCLISTS before locals would remonstrate with motorcyclists? Surely some "no motorcycling" signs would have made the intention clear?

[MikeF]

I belived there a legal requirement to keep bw to a width of 2 metres

My knowledge on this is a bit rusty and never was complete anyway. However I suspect that the width of the BW is stated in the Definitive Statement that accompanies each BW on the Definitive Map. It will be variable, but as defined in the Definitive Statement. However if there is a new BW or even one that is "modified" because of say an adjacent housing estate, or upgraded from a public footpath, I think the width has to be 2 metres. Perhaps someone can correct me if I'm wrong.

No, the two metres thing comes from the required minimum width of route retained/reinstated in a Bridleway across a ploughed field - only applies to this circumstance, not a general rule.

there is non-statutory guidance that new orders should specify a width = advice note 16.https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... l_2016.pdf

It's not as simple as that.
http://legislation.data.gov.uk/cy/ukpga/1990/24/data.htm?wrap=true Note "......has been so disturbed as to render it inconvenient for the exercise of the public right of way, a competent authority may make good the surface to an extent not less than the minimum width nor greater than the maximum width." That isn't just by ploughing and as I indicated above it could be a new housing estate or illegal disturbance.

1(1)For the purposes of this Schedule the “minimum width” and “maximum width” of a highway shall be determined in accordance with sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) below.
(2)In any case where the width of the highway is proved, that width is both the “minimum width” and the “maximum width”.
(3)In any other case—
(a)the “minimum width” is—
(i)as respects a footpath which is not a field-edge path, 1 metre,
(ii)as respects a footpath which is a field-edge path, 1.5 metres,
(iii)as respects a bridleway which is not a field-edge path, 2 metres, or
(iv)as respects any other highway, 3 metres; and
(b)the “maximum width” is—
(i)as respects a footpath, 1.8 metres,
(ii)as respects a bridleway, 3 metres, or
(iii)as respects any other highway, 5 metres.

Also http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/66 Section 27 Making up of new footpaths and bridleways.
"...the highway authority shall survey the path or way and shall certify what work (if any) appears to them to be necessary to bring it into a fit condition for use by the public as a footpath or bridleway," This could be width. Obviously you cannot have a BW that is too narrow for a horse and it is likely that the Authority would use the dimensions in Act.

The Planning Inspectorate document seems slightly at odds here with the Acts as far as I can see but ROW legislation is complicated. It seems to have some bias towards railway crossings. Also it seems to trying to add clarification the the Definitive Statement.
1. The purpose of this advice note is to clarify the Planning Inspectorate’s position on the need for widths to be shown on all public path, definitive map and rail crossing orders.
2. This note is publicly available, but has no legal force. It is not an authoritative interpretation of the law.
Consideration