Could Cycling UK take the HBB to the local court, saying it does not have the authority to close the bridge indefinitely to cyclists and pedestrians?2.24.14 Exercising any other power which by law the Board is
empowered to exercise
Humber Bridge now open to cyclists & pedestrians
-
- Posts: 2749
- Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm
Re: Humber Bridge closed to cyclists & pedestrians indefinitely
Thanks Thirdcrank
Re: Humber Bridge closed to cyclists & pedestrians indefinitely
Using judicial review? That's possible. It would require an application to the High Court. Cycling UK probably have standing. But I would estimate the chance of success as low... if the quoted terms above are correct they probably have the power to do this, and the threshold is very high.Steady rider wrote: ↑20 Apr 2021, 6:26pm Thanks ThirdcrankCould Cycling UK take the HBB to the local court, saying it does not have the authority to close the bridge indefinitely to cyclists and pedestrians?2.24.14 Exercising any other power which by law the Board is
empowered to exercise
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_ ... nglish_law
Building support, talking to MPs, and direct action look much better bets to me.
Jonathan
-
- Posts: 2749
- Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm
Re: Humber Bridge closed to cyclists & pedestrians indefinitely
Taking it to a local court may be possible, but I am not sure. Cost for a local case may be moderate. The case I suppose would be they do not have the right to indefinitely close the paths to cyclists and pedestrians. Not having a consultation may be another aspect.
There is period allowed to take JR action. A pre -action protocol JR action http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/proced ... l/prot_jrv
I expect Cycling UK may need to talk with their legal advisors.
The danger is if the court said they had the right, making it even more difficult to gain wider support.
There is period allowed to take JR action. A pre -action protocol JR action http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/proced ... l/prot_jrv
I expect Cycling UK may need to talk with their legal advisors.
The danger is if the court said they had the right, making it even more difficult to gain wider support.
Re: Humber Bridge closed to cyclists & pedestrians indefinitely
This is in England. Exceeding powers is subject to judicial review. That is heard in the High Court.Steady rider wrote: ↑20 Apr 2021, 6:53pm Taking it to a local court may be possible, but I am not sure. Cost for a local case may be moderate. The case I suppose would be they do not have the right to indefinitely close the paths to cyclists and pedestrians. If not having a consultation may be another aspect.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_ ... nglish_law
What process could be pursued in a "local court", please?
Thanks
Jonathan
-
- Posts: 2749
- Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm
Re: Humber Bridge closed to cyclists & pedestrians indefinitely
Failure to properly maintain a highway, could go to a local court.
The pre -action protocol, would require both sides to spell out their cases to a large degree.
I think using both public pressure, protest event, letters, media, etc and a pre -action protocol may be the way to go, subject to legal advice.
The pre -action protocol, would require both sides to spell out their cases to a large degree.
I think using both public pressure, protest event, letters, media, etc and a pre -action protocol may be the way to go, subject to legal advice.
if no result within a couple of weeks, then the court option may be the only avenue open.Building support, talking to MPs, and direct action look much better bets to me
-
- Posts: 15215
- Joined: 30 Nov 2013, 11:26am
Re: Humber Bridge closed to cyclists & pedestrians indefinitely
This is the sort of story the local media should be concentrating on
Entertainer, juvenile, curmudgeon, PoB, 30120
Cycling-of course, but it is far better on a Gillott
We love safety cameras, we hate bullies
Cycling-of course, but it is far better on a Gillott
We love safety cameras, we hate bullies
Re: Humber Bridge closed to cyclists & pedestrians indefinitely
And of course they are, as in the multiple linked articles upthread.Cyril Haearn wrote: ↑21 Apr 2021, 10:03am This is the sort of story the local media should be concentrating on
And from Hull Live:
https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/all-about/humber-bridge
Jonathan
Re: Humber Bridge closed to cyclists & pedestrians indefinitely
Are you thinking of civil liability resulting in damages?Steady rider wrote: ↑21 Apr 2021, 9:41am Failure to properly maintain a highway, could go to a local court.
That's discussed here:
https://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/lex ... aintenance
And the relevant legislation is at:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/66/section/58
But I have no idea if closure could be included in "not maintaining", or ever has been...
...thirdcrank's always very helpful on this....
Jonathan
-
- Posts: 36778
- Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm
Re: Humber Bridge closed to cyclists & pedestrians indefinitely
I'd always assumed that in this context "maintain" referred to the physical state of the road.
I think that the key here is the duty of the traffic authority to maintain the flow of traffic in its broadest sense. This seems a relevant bit of the Highways Act, but I think it's aimed more at encroachment and obstruction by landowners etc rather than the authority's own actions
I really must stress that rights of way are not one of my subjects.
It seems to me that what you have here is a public authority mistaken about the extent of its powers. No matter how this started, it seems to have reached the stage where the authority at a higher level has accepted and confirmed what's happening. IMO, if anybody really wants to do anything through the legal system, then they need the advice of a specialist lawyer - not cheap unless you know one willing to do it pro bono. If they say that the HBB is wrong, then a letter from them setting out the relevant law may work. Or not. If it doesn't, then they will explain the available steps such as a writ or judicial review and a likely price list.
I think that the key here is the duty of the traffic authority to maintain the flow of traffic in its broadest sense. This seems a relevant bit of the Highways Act, but I think it's aimed more at encroachment and obstruction by landowners etc rather than the authority's own actions
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/19 ... ection/130130 Protection of public rights.
(1) It is the duty of the highway authority to assert and protect the rights of the public to the use and enjoyment of any highway for which they are the highway authority, ( ... )
I really must stress that rights of way are not one of my subjects.
It seems to me that what you have here is a public authority mistaken about the extent of its powers. No matter how this started, it seems to have reached the stage where the authority at a higher level has accepted and confirmed what's happening. IMO, if anybody really wants to do anything through the legal system, then they need the advice of a specialist lawyer - not cheap unless you know one willing to do it pro bono. If they say that the HBB is wrong, then a letter from them setting out the relevant law may work. Or not. If it doesn't, then they will explain the available steps such as a writ or judicial review and a likely price list.
Re: Humber Bridge closed to cyclists & pedestrians indefinitely
Thanks
Jonathan
Jonathan
-
- Posts: 36778
- Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm
Re: Humber Bridge closed to cyclists & pedestrians indefinitely
I think the duty to consult may be relevant here, especially as the HBB seems to have set its face against doing so. There seems to be a lot of case law about this - most of it not easily accessed on line.
From a quick mugging up - which may be miles off the mark - it seems that this duty may arise in two main ways: a common law duty of fairness and a statutory requirement.
The statutory requirement to consult is in the procedure for making a TRO even though that's been circumvented by not making a TRO.
Like so many things, the common law duty stems from the vague concept of fairness. This is a gem from the linked article
I've quoted the HBB's own Constitution on its commitment to consultation higher up.
===================================================================================
I'll reiterate this:
From a quick mugging up - which may be miles off the mark - it seems that this duty may arise in two main ways: a common law duty of fairness and a statutory requirement.
The statutory requirement to consult is in the procedure for making a TRO even though that's been circumvented by not making a TRO.
Like so many things, the common law duty stems from the vague concept of fairness. This is a gem from the linked article
https://www.administrativelawmatters.co ... o-consult/... the demands of fairness are likely to be somewhat higher when an authority contemplates depriving someone of an existing benefit or advantage than when the claimant is a bare applicant for a future benefit ...
I've quoted the HBB's own Constitution on its commitment to consultation higher up.
===================================================================================
I'll reiterate this:
In the boilerplate reply, the HBB referred to emergency powers under Humber Bridge Act 1959. Without reading that Act, it's impossible to know what they are, but they need reading by a lawyer; in particular, something that's been happening and known about since long before the opening of the HB and has been occurring ever since it opened may not be an "emergency" in the sense used in the legislation.I don't know what's in the two earlier Humber Bridge acts so there might be something in there.
Re: Humber Bridge closed to cyclists & pedestrians indefinitely
I've just realised that there may be some differences in understanding.
The Subject of the thread includes "indefinitely". But the Board refers to taking action under emergency powers and in its reply to Cycling UK says "We see this as the first step back to enable everyone to use the bridge again.".
My comment on the low chance of success at judicial review is predicated on the restrictions being temporary...
Jonathan
The Subject of the thread includes "indefinitely". But the Board refers to taking action under emergency powers and in its reply to Cycling UK says "We see this as the first step back to enable everyone to use the bridge again.".
My comment on the low chance of success at judicial review is predicated on the restrictions being temporary...
Jonathan
Re: Humber Bridge closed to cyclists & pedestrians indefinitely
Here's an idea. Until the cycle path can safely re-open, why don't they put a 30mph limit on the bridge, and remove the 'no cycling' signs.
Or would that cause inconvenience to people?
Or would that cause inconvenience to people?
-
- Posts: 2445
- Joined: 7 Jul 2008, 12:52am
Re: Humber Bridge closed to cyclists & pedestrians indefinitely
Just remove the no cycling signs - there is no justification for them irrespective of whether you are allowed to use the footway.
However desirable you consider a lower speed limit, if you start to argue that a 30mph speed limit is necesary in order to allow cycling at all then that is an awful lot of roads we would be banned from.
However desirable you consider a lower speed limit, if you start to argue that a 30mph speed limit is necesary in order to allow cycling at all then that is an awful lot of roads we would be banned from.
-
- Posts: 2749
- Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm
Re: Humber Bridge closed to cyclists & pedestrians indefinitely
https://www.humberbridge.co.uk/2021/04/ ... statement/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humber_Bridge
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humber_Bridge
Plans were announced on 26 December 2009 to construct a suicide barrier along the walkways of the bridge; design constraints were cited as the reason for not installing barriers during the construction of the bridge.[34]