Shared use paths - Bells ringing ignored...

Commuting, Day rides, Audax, Incidents, etc.
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 13277
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Shared use paths - Bells ringing ignored...

Postby mjr » 9 Sep 2016, 9:22am

rfryer wrote:
Giles Pargiter wrote:In fact their is no need for a great long debate about this as the situation is perfectly clear.

A highway is anywere the public can go by right rather than privilege and the highway code applies to highways.

Can you back up this assertion? I had a quick scan of my copy of the highway code, and found it explicit about cases when broadening it's scope away from the "road" (eg to include pavements alongside the road when discussing pedestrians), but couldn't find any mention of off-road facilities.

I've never understood why the highway code doesn't include what "highway" is from the current(!) 1835 law:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Will4/5-6/50/section/5 wrote:“highways” shall be understood to mean all roads, bridges . . . , carriageways, cartways, horseways, bridleways, footways, causeways, churchways, and pavements

which was clarified a bit in 1980:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/66/part/XIV/crossheading/interpretation wrote:(1)In this Act, except where the context otherwise requires, “highway” means the whole or a part of a highway other than a ferry or waterway.

(2)Where a highway passes over a bridge or through a tunnel, that bridge or tunnel is to be taken for the purposes of this Act to be a part of the highway.

(3)In this Act, “highway maintainable at the public expense” and any other expression defined by reference to a highway is to be construed in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this section.

and many other acts more or less adopt that same definition, so "in this Act" isn't as much of a limit as you might think. A later section of that act effectively added cycle track to the 1835 category of "highways":
“cycle track” means a way constituting or comprised in a highway, being a way over which the public have the following, but no other, rights of way, that is to say, a right of way on pedal cycles (other than pedal cycles which are motor vehicles within the meaning of the Road Traffic Act 1988 with or without a right of way on foot;

(and yes, there really does seem to be an unclosed parenthetical, thanks to an amendment).

Similarly, here's the 1988 legislated definition of road (and yes, the definitions of road and highway refer to each other!):
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/192 wrote:"road”
(a) in relation to England and Wales, means any highway and any other road to which the public has access, and includes bridges over which a road passes ,
and
(b) in relation to Scotland, means any road within the meaning of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 and any other way to which the public has access, and includes bridges over which a road passes,

and "street" from 1991 which is used in some contexts:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1991/22/section/48 wrote:In this Part a “street” means the whole or any part of any of the following, irrespective of whether it is a thoroughfare—

(a)any highway, road, lane, footway, alley or passage,

(b)any square or court, and

(c)any land laid out as a way whether it is for the time being formed as a way or not.

Where a street passes over a bridge or through a tunnel, references in this Part to the street include that bridge or tunnel.


Just my opinion and like pwa, I don't mind negotiating a right-hand pass when necessary, but:
Mark1978 wrote:With regard to the keep left thing - notwithstanding the "pedestrians can do what they like" argument. Should peds / runners stick to the left too?

No, they should stick to the right, as in the highway code. I feel the grey area probably starts at skaters, especially if they are travelling at roughly similar speed to cycling.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.

jgurney
Posts: 511
Joined: 10 May 2009, 8:34am

Re: Shared use paths - Bells ringing ignored...

Postby jgurney » 9 Sep 2016, 10:04am

pwa wrote:. It is like a long, thin public park. The idea that anyone would instruct people there to behave as if on a road is comical.


However unless this route is clearly private property where cyclists go only by permission, as opposed to a highway, then it is a road and the law as it stands does instruct us to do exactly that. Even if it is private, then unless it is made clear that the usual rules of the road do not apply, then they still do (e.g. the Highway Code still applies to a driveway to a supermarket car park, but does not on a motor racing track).

In principle I have no great objection to the creation of leisure cycling facilities where, as in the case of a motor racing track, it is clear that the usual rules do not apply, but exactly as in the motor racing track:
- the non-applicability of the usual rules should be made clear.
- the facility should be clearly labelled as a leisure facility and not treated as part of a cycle route network or shown as such on maps.
- it's existence should in no way be seen as a reason for not building a real cycle route connecting the same places, or for making cycle-unfriendly alterations to nearby roads on the grounds that cyclists will not be using them as they can use the leisure facility.

Mark1978
Posts: 4912
Joined: 17 Jul 2012, 8:47am
Location: Chester-le-Street, County Durham

Re: Shared use paths - Bells ringing ignored...

Postby Mark1978 » 9 Sep 2016, 4:15pm

mjr wrote:No, they should stick to the right, as in the highway code. I feel the grey area probably starts at skaters, especially if they are travelling at roughly similar speed to cycling.


Can you go further into why that's best? I'm not a runner so I don't have a runners perspective on this.

jgurney
Posts: 511
Joined: 10 May 2009, 8:34am

Re: Shared use paths - Bells ringing ignored...

Postby jgurney » 9 Sep 2016, 8:01pm

Mark1978 wrote:
mjr wrote:No, they should stick to the right, as in the highway code


Can you go further into why that's best?


For the same reason that vehicles should stick to the left (except to pass oncoming pedestrians) - that road users insisting on doing the opposite of the usual rules will come into conflict with those who are heeding them and expect others to do so.

The rule is mainly for the benefit of pedestrians. The effect is that vehicles passing pedestrians from behind will do so on the opposite side of the road rather than immediately beside them.

SpannerGeek
Posts: 722
Joined: 12 Nov 2015, 2:16pm

Re: Shared use paths - Bells ringing ignored...

Postby SpannerGeek » 9 Sep 2016, 8:54pm

Jogger, stopped in the middle of the path, headphones blaring, head bent, fixed, intent on answering text message on phone. I had to go up and poke him in the shoulder to get by.

I wonder if there's an offence of careless jogging... :lol:

Bmblbzzz
Posts: 2723
Joined: 18 May 2012, 7:56pm
Location: From here to there.

Re: Shared use paths - Bells ringing ignored...

Postby Bmblbzzz » 9 Sep 2016, 8:58pm

mjr wrote:Similarly, here's the 1988 legislated definition of road (and yes, the definitions of road and highway refer to each other!):

I think that circularity is one of the reasons why the Highway Code doesn't quote the definition of a highway. That and the fact that the HC is meant to be an easily understood guide, not an expert's guide; and that the definitions vary slightly according to which legislation is applied. But mostly because it's not relevant. In the context of the HC, people know what roads are. The only grey areas really would be places like car parks.

Giles Pargiter
Posts: 65
Joined: 15 Sep 2012, 11:34pm
Location: N & Mid Wales.

Re: Shared use paths - Bells ringing ignored...

Postby Giles Pargiter » 9 Sep 2016, 9:30pm

Thankyou MrJ ^^ I was about to look it all up again, I have it on another harddrive somewhere, it is part of what I needed to know as a transport operator in the past.

The main point being of course, that it is a code that all of us who use vehicles are required to know and if we apply it all the time when we are using one it is a great help in safely negotiating our way round each other with as little impedence as possible.

As I also indicated even on private property where the public are not allowed such as within quarries or on farm operations it is a great aid to safety. Even in the middle of a field you haven't got time to mess around wondering if the man in a 20 ton tractor and trailer coming the other way is going to pass left or right and the results of mistakes are disatrous. One just wants to get on with making money - fast. . .

So; have no doubt:- use the highway code.

Saying all that clearly using shared use paths we are going to be mixing it with other cyclists, who being vehicle users should know (or be learning) the highway code. So if they use it (highway code) our uncertainty is down to pedestrians and we have to accept that that is part of sharing the use. Which is often complicated, as others have said, by the fact that some sections of path often do amount to linear parks in the way that they are used. This coupled to the uncertain and often maverick design features is part of what we have to cope with on them.
So in my view very good for the "scenic" route sometimes and good for diddling along with children but if you actually want to get somewhere usually of very limited use.
So considering sustrans aim of linking communities for commuting, shared use facitlities are at present an incredibly poor idea. They need a lot more very carefull thought put into their design and layout.

I just noticed the post above. Car parks if they are for public use, such as supermarket parking are in fact clearly public highways.

User avatar
meic
Posts: 19355
Joined: 1 Feb 2007, 9:37pm
Location: Caerfyrddin (Carmarthen)

Re: Shared use paths - Bells ringing ignored...

Postby meic » 9 Sep 2016, 9:48pm

I just noticed the post above. Car parks if they are for public use, such as supermarket parking are in fact clearly public highways.


Not at all clear to me, they are private land which the public have access to by permission of the owner. That doesnt make them a public highway, the owner can tell you to get out, deny you access and obstruct your way as much as he likes. I think that the law even has a separate description of such areas as being included in addition to public highways when requiring motorists to have insurance.
Yma o Hyd

SpannerGeek
Posts: 722
Joined: 12 Nov 2015, 2:16pm

Re: Shared use paths - Bells ringing ignored...

Postby SpannerGeek » 9 Sep 2016, 10:06pm

I was just wondering the other day, the legal liability of a dog owner, when it is not on a leash or under control of its owner and causes harm or damage to a cyclist either by A. Attacking the cyclist, or B. Causing the cyclist to crash and injure themselves and/or a third party.

Is the dog owner completely liable in this case? Relevant law would be useful here, rather than anecdotal evidence. I've a friend who was chased and subsequently bitten by a dog on a cycle route recently and he would like to take a legal challenge to the owner, if at all possible.
Last edited by SpannerGeek on 9 Sep 2016, 10:14pm, edited 1 time in total.

Giles Pargiter
Posts: 65
Joined: 15 Sep 2012, 11:34pm
Location: N & Mid Wales.

Re: Shared use paths - Bells ringing ignored...

Postby Giles Pargiter » 9 Sep 2016, 10:11pm

meic wrote:
I just noticed the post above. Car parks if they are for public use, such as supermarket parking are in fact clearly public highways.


Not at all clear to me, they are private land which the public have access to by permission of the owner. That doesnt make them a public highway, the owner can tell you to get out, deny you access and obstruct your way as much as he likes. I think that the law even has a separate description of such areas as being included in addition to public highways when requiring motorists to have insurance.


It has been extablished by precedent that a shop or other business inviting customers to their premises who are not allowed to discriminate as to who visits, even if their shop is on a privately owned access, are causing that access to be a public highway. Notwithstanding that they could discriminate against someone during or after their visit because of behaviour such as shoplifting.
This is not the case for say, country clubs or golf courses where at the entrance clearly displayed is a "members only" or some such dicriminatory sign.

And yes if using a motor vehicle you do need all the usual qualifications with the exception of vehicle duty.

It will take me ages to dig out the actual cases but I think you will find them very quickly by googling.

User avatar
meic
Posts: 19355
Joined: 1 Feb 2007, 9:37pm
Location: Caerfyrddin (Carmarthen)

Re: Shared use paths - Bells ringing ignored...

Postby meic » 9 Sep 2016, 11:06pm

Giles Pargiter wrote:
meic wrote:
I just noticed the post above. Car parks if they are for public use, such as supermarket parking are in fact clearly public highways.


Not at all clear to me, they are private land which the public have access to by permission of the owner. That doesnt make them a public highway, the owner can tell you to get out, deny you access and obstruct your way as much as he likes. I think that the law even has a separate description of such areas as being included in addition to public highways when requiring motorists to have insurance.


It has been extablished by precedent that a shop or other business inviting customers to their premises who are not allowed to discriminate as to who visits, even if their shop is on a privately owned access, are causing that access to be a public highway. Notwithstanding that they could discriminate against someone during or after their visit because of behaviour such as shoplifting.
This is not the case for say, country clubs or golf courses where at the entrance clearly displayed is a "members only" or some such dicriminatory sign.

And yes if using a motor vehicle you do need all the usual qualifications with the exception of vehicle duty.

It will take me ages to dig out the actual cases but I think you will find them very quickly by googling.

So it isnt a public highway.
Yma o Hyd

Giles Pargiter
Posts: 65
Joined: 15 Sep 2012, 11:34pm
Location: N & Mid Wales.

Re: Shared use paths - Bells ringing ignored...

Postby Giles Pargiter » 9 Sep 2016, 11:46pm

It is private property with a public highway over it.

jgurney
Posts: 511
Joined: 10 May 2009, 8:34am

Re: Shared use paths - Bells ringing ignored...

Postby jgurney » 10 Sep 2016, 11:40am

Giles Pargiter wrote:
meic wrote:
I just noticed the post above. Car parks if they are for public use, such as supermarket parking are in fact clearly public highways.


Not at all clear to me, they are private land which the public have access to by permission of the owner. That doesnt make them a public highway,


The point is being missed here. Such a supermarket car park and approach driveway is not a public highway. The supermarket owner could lock a gate when the shop was closed.

However while the premises are open for the general public to enter, drivers of motor vehicles present there must follow the same rules which apply to a public highway.

Strictly cyclists are not required to do the same. While no precedent exists, I suspect that if a suit was brought following an accident involving a cyclist a court would consider their having followed the same rules as apply on a public highway as evidence the cyclist had not been negligent.

jgurney
Posts: 511
Joined: 10 May 2009, 8:34am

Re: Shared use paths - Bells ringing ignored...

Postby jgurney » 10 Sep 2016, 11:44am

SpannerGeek wrote:I was just wondering the other day, the legal liability of a dog owner, when it is not on a leash or under control of its owner and causes harm or damage to a cyclist either by A. Attacking the cyclist, or B. Causing the cyclist to crash and injure themselves and/or a third party.

Is the dog owner completely liable in this case? Relevant law would be useful here, rather than anecdotal evidence. I've a friend who was chased and subsequently bitten by a dog on a cycle route recently and he would like to take a legal challenge to the owner, if at all possible.


The owner of a dog which attacks someone can be prosecuted. Your friend should tell the police about this.

reohn2
Posts: 35258
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Shared use paths - Bells ringing ignored...

Postby reohn2 » 10 Sep 2016, 1:58pm

jgurney wrote:
SpannerGeek wrote:I was just wondering the other day, the legal liability of a dog owner, when it is not on a leash or under control of its owner and causes harm or damage to a cyclist either by A. Attacking the cyclist, or B. Causing the cyclist to crash and injure themselves and/or a third party.

Is the dog owner completely liable in this case? Relevant law would be useful here, rather than anecdotal evidence. I've a friend who was chased and subsequently bitten by a dog on a cycle route recently and he would like to take a legal challenge to the owner, if at all possible.


The owner of a dog which attacks someone can be prosecuted. Your friend should tell the police about this.


The problem in the UK is proving ownership of such an animal.
If the perceived owner doesn't claim ownership where do you go from there?
-----------------------------------------------------------
I cycle therefore I am.