Removal of anti-cycling gates. How?

[ferdinand]

Bicycler the definition of a footway in the 1970 is irrelevaent as the Disabled and Chronically Sick Act specifies that the defintion of a footway to be used in conjunction with the act is the one given in the 1980 Highways Act via an ammendment to the act. So while the defintion of a footway may be broader in the 1970 act it would be a mistake to interpret the act in terms of this definition. The intention of this clause was not allow access to all paths accessible on foot to people in invalid carriages but to remove obstacles to the passage of invalid carriages along footways (which would have been illegal under the 1835 HA), next to carriagewas, on streets. To try to extend the term "footway" to include all paths accessible on foot is wrong. Your use of the term carriageway is also incorrect as to include a footway as part of the carriageway would mean it was legal to drive a vehicle along a footway which it isn't (1835 highways act sec 72) which prohibits a “carriage of any description” being used on a footway - hence this part of the 1970 act. They are not both parts of "a vehicular road" but are seperate entities running adjacent or paralelll to each other with very different access rights - you can drive a vehicle on a carriageway you cannot drive (except in certain specific instances) a vehicle on a footway (http://www.roadswerenotbuiltforcars.com/1835highwayact/).

The upshot of this is that the 1970 act only applies to footways (paths alongside roads) and not to the types of paths identified in the original and subsequent postings and would not be applicable in an application to remove these barriers

@Sirmy

Firstly I very much appreciate your challenges here - which help with all our thinking. As iron strikes iron, so one sharpens another etc. Also, for everyone else who has posted.

Having said that , and after looking up the Acts of Parliament etc on this one, I'm with bicycler on the interpretation here.

The statement in the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 as amended by the 1980 Highways Act is:

“footway” means a way which is a footway, footpath or bridleway within the meaning of the Highways Act 1980

That surely means that the rights of access granted by this Act apply to all three categories of "footway" AND "footpath" AND "bridleway" as defined individually within the 1980 Act, which definitions are quoted a few messages ago.

Also, this Act is cited in the Statutory Guidance on Rights of Way Improvement Plans issued in 2002 in the context of Access to Rights of Way in the countryside beyond those alongside highways.
http://disabledramblers.co.uk/wp3/wp-co ... -rowip.pdf

Also in Section 60 of that Act seems to me to make the assumption of Access Rights to "local rights of way" for people who have impaired mobility, which includes Bridleways and Footpaths.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/200 ... ment-plans

This is one tool amongst several to skin the various access cats, and I think we may have taken this particular aspect of the conversation as far as we can.

Ferdinand

[ferdinand]

Councils will have responsibility to ensure disabled people are considered in the construction of highways and any other routes they provide, though as you note the issue of practicability raises its head.

Agree that practicability and reasonable adaptations need to be considered, and can be used in making a case.

One of the opinions given to me by the EHCR Helpline was that "design of access control structures" needed to be considered under the "reasonable adaptations" test for disability under equality law, given that a footpath / bridleway etc is considered to be a service provided to the public by the Local Authority, even if over third party land.

To illustrate what I understand by reasonable adaptaion according to context: for a ground floor business premises to be adapted for disabled access constructing a ramp may be a "reasonable adaptation" while demolishing and reconstructing an entire frontage might not be. Or providing wider doorways would be reasonable for a ground floor flat in a Victorian terrace, but to do the same for a walk-up flat on the 3rd Storey might not be so.

One of the ones I'm looking at has restrictive barriers on paths specifically advertised as open to all.

Ferdinand

[ferdinand]

An exchange of correspondence with the CTC this morning - Cherry Allan (Campaigns and Policy Information Coordinator):

Cherry

Can I also ask you for help. I am trying to obtain a comment from a legal eagle on whether people on Mobiliy Scooters have a right to use footpaths and bridleways, under the “Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970” Section 20 as amended by the Highways Act 1980.

That is the contention of the Disabled Ramblers Association (http://disabledramblers.co.uk/access-issues/), who have had some success using the argument.

Regards

We don’t have an internal lawyer, but I’ve asked our Campaigns Director, Roger Geffen to check on the law and his (and my) understanding is that the legislation is clear-cut and is as the Disabled Ramblers interpret it.

Cherry Allan
Campaigns and Policy Information Coordinator

I'm not claiming that is an authoritative legal opinion, but with what I have above I am happy that I can make the argument to Councils and back it up credibly.

Ferdinand

[jgurney]

Am I missing something.
These gates are to stop motorbikes using cycle and pedestrian paths.
That's all.
And I have no problem either riding through them ( canal path at Worksop ), or jamming my wide frame between them and riding on, (Thurcroft ).

That is nice for you but I have several times had to give up trying to use various signposted or mapped 'cycle routes' I encountered and return to the road because of impassible barriers.

Surely if councils, etc, install these things they should be required to put up warning signs at the ends of the affected route stating the max. dimensions of cycle that can fit down it. Where motorists are affected by width, height, length, weight, etc limits these seem to be are signposted well in advance.

[Bicycler]

I'm not claiming that is an authoritative legal opinion, but with what I have above I am happy that I can make the argument to Councils and back it up credibly.

It's certainly of some use, though do note the difference between your wording "a right to use" and that of the disabled ramblers "allowed to use". The 1970 Act prevents any laws from prohibiting the use of invalid carriages on footpaths (etc.), ie. it allows them to be used. Though it can be said that we have a right to do any lawful activity the word 'right' as used in highway law regarding obstructions etc. refers to a right of way, which is more than just an absence of prohibition. I'd be wary about drawing conclusions that the Act guarantees a right of passage which the barriers prevent. It may well be that in light of later legislation the construction of barriers is in a particular case illegal and discriminatory but I'd make your case with careful reference to that later legislation rather than relying solely on the 1970 Act.

Hope that helps

[ferdinand]

I'm not claiming that is an authoritative legal opinion, but with what I have above I am happy that I can make the argument to Councils and back it up credibly.

It's certainly of some use, though do note the difference between your wording "a right to use" and that of the disabled ramblers "allowed to use". The 1970 Act prevents any laws from prohibiting the use of invalid carriages on footpaths (etc.), ie. it allows them to be used. Though it can be said that we have a right to do any lawful activity the word 'right' as used in highway law regarding obstructions etc. refers to a right of way, which is more than just an absence of prohibition. I'd be wary about drawing conclusions that the Act guarantees a right of passage which the barriers prevent. It may well be that in light of later legislation the construction of barriers is in a particular case illegal and discriminatory but I'd make your case with careful reference to that later legislation rather than relying solely on the 1970 Act.

Hope that helps

Noted. Thanks.

The risk would be that a front line bod who has given in to the case might start resisting later if the initial request has been overegged.

Ferdinand

[andreafj]

I'm not sure if there is a better place to post this...What is the best way for a tourist (I'm from Canada) to figure out if trail entrances are going to be accessible by bicycle? My husband and I are planning to ride LEJOG next year on our tandem. Between the length of the tandem and the fact that we are riding unsupported and will have full panniers, there are a lot of gates that I have seen on Google StreetView that concern me.
Thanks,
Andrea

[[XAP]Bob]

Personally I'd just ignore them and use minor roads.
There is some good information on OSM, but it's not always complete - and therefore can't be completely trusted.

One of the better route planning systems incorporating the data is http://cycle.travel (wierd URL)
But at the end of the day it's pot luck in the UK without local knowledge

[Vorpal]

Personally I'd just ignore them and use minor roads.
There is some good information on OSM, but it's not always complete - and therefore can't be completely trusted.

As someone who has gone around with a loaded tandem in the UK, I'm afraid I have to agree. Most barriers are passable with a tandem and panniers, but there are some of the bicycle kissing gate type, and tandems don't fit in those. I've had to lift mine over.

It makes me sad to say it, but avoid off-road facilities. Or at least plan to ask local cyclists before you attempt them.

The flip side of that is there is some lovely cycling on the rural lanes in the UK.

[Mistik-ka]

As one-half of another Canadian tandem couple who've done two holiday tours around England, I am inclined to agree with much of what's been said, including the use of http://cycle.travel as a very helpful planning program. (It co=-ordinates nicely with our Garmin Montana GPS, should you be planning on that sort of navigation.)http://www.cyclestreets.net/journey/ is another useful site; being a belt-and-suspenders kind of guy I often used both programs and then chose the recommendation that suited us best. On our first four-week tour we tried to use National Cycle Routes wherever possible; on our second go-round two years later we tried to avoid the National Cycle Routes as much as possible, due to the frequency of truly horrible access gates (which we now refer to as "tandem traps"). Where "traffic free" sections of route seemed unavoidable, I used Google Streetview to try to assess each intersection between road and trail.

The rural lanes, as Vorpal said, can be absolutely lovely.

When we've been considering specific sections of route that seem uncertain, I've posted queries on this forum and had loads of generous local information in response. We've begun some lasting friendships via this forum.

Canal paths can be lovely, though not usually safe at higher speeds; they can also be narrow, boggy, and interrupted with tandem traps. The thought of ending up in the water makes my stoker anxious and unhappy. As I'm sure you are aware, "the stoker is never wrong."

That said, we loved both English tandem trips and are starting to discuss where we'll go on the next one. We cannot recommend it too highly! If your planned route co-incides with any of our travels, we've be delighted to share what we've learned along the way.

[sirmy]

Ferdinand as I'he already pointed out the 1980 highways act gives a specific definition of a footway, foot path etc and it is theses definitions that would apply. I've read the rowip document before and would have to say your interpretation of it is flawed in as much as a rowip is independent of the1970 act. The 1970 act cannot be used to support the removal of the barriers shown in the earlier posts

[andreafj]

Thanks for the feedback on negotiating gates with a touring tandem. I've taken yet another look at our routing and tried to check most of the gates using Google street view which has resulted in some route changes. I flagged them on my route maps to I know I have checked them. I am trying to balance a bit of time without traffic and getting a somewhat more scenic route with the likely reduced speed of the off road paths. I certainly have found some of the nice laneways that have been mentioned, but the pathways are certainly welcome in busier areas like the day we ride through Glasgow. I've been using a combination of the cycle.travel website and Ride with GPS for my planning.

Mistik-ka I'm glad to hear of another tandem team that enjoys the UK. We are really looking forward to this trip Here is our route if you are interested in taking a look: http://ridewithgps.com/events/LEJOG-2016 I have been very grateful for some advice over on the LEJOG thread.

Andrea

[gaz]

Resurrecting an old thread.

Came across an addition to a local A-frame today.

DSCN0852a.jpg

Armed only with an adjustable spanner I swiftly discovered that the threaded bar has been peened over and it would not simply unbolt.

E-mail this evening to relevant PRoW officer, trying to establish how it came about and more importantly to formalise its removal.

I'll report back when I know more.

[mjr]

I suspect that's an example of another well-known problem with barriers - they reduce the length of the obstruction required for a NIMBY to block off the cycle track, or create a stile to restrict it to pedestrians only.

[pwa]

Resurrecting an old thread.

Came across an addition to a local A-frame today.
DSCN0852a.jpg
Armed only with an adjustable spanner I swiftly discovered that the threaded bar has been peened over and it would not simply unbolt.

E-mail this evening to relevant PRoW officer, trying to establish how it came about and more importantly to formalise its removal.

I'll report back when I know more.

Mmm. If that were a brand new A frame I would be guessing that the mysterious cross piece is a spacer intended to maintain the correct spacing during installation, and the installers have forgotten to remove it. But it doesn't look new. Strange.