Resting of cycle against closed shop

[QUIST]

I would like to know if anyone knows the answer to the following.

This morning I was very firmly told by a shopkeepr that they had exclusive possession of their shopfront in the sense that I was not allowed to rest my cycle against it ( the only part which was resting was the Altura pannier).

No damage was done to their property. Access to the closed shop was not barred and there did not seem to be any actibity within the property. My cycle was parked on the street ( the public highway)

The shopkeeper felt they did not pay rent to have a cycle rest against their property i said I wanted to keep my cycle within eyeshot.

Is the shopkeeper correct - there were no cycle parking facilities within eyeshot?

[meic]

I dont think that there is anything that either of you can do about it. If anything he may have the right to move your bike from contacting the wall. Though this changes if either of you cause damage. I think that morally you have no right to use his wall for support against his wishes.

I had a similar run in with a lady who objected to me leaning my bike on her wall. Fortunately there was a street sign between my bike and her wall so I moved my bike an inch to lean on it instead.

I am inclined to say it is their wall, let them have it and find another. If the shop was trading you could also point out they are losing at least one customer.

Be wary of escalating the situation, a civil court will probably award the costs to the winner of the dispute, making them the loser! The Police/criminal court may well bind you both over to keep the peace if it escalates to a disturbance.

Best solution is to walk away from it.

As a slight complication, if he allows it to happen and it becomes a habit for 20 years, after that period you can claim it as a right!!! Even preventing him from improving his property in a way that prevents your right.
This stupid law is what makes people fence things off and erect silly "Do Not" signs.

[Mark1978]

Were you a customer of the shop at the time? If so bad form from the shop keeper.

He would have to show that you have caused damage to his property, if no damage, no issue. But need to chalk this up to him being a bit crazy.

[cycleruk]

I can only ask you to think what you would do if some one leaned their bike against your house window or door?
Obviously we all lean our bikes against walls when in shops etc' and make sure we don't cause harm to glass or paintwork.
If your bike was leant on the brickwork and not in anyone's way then I would expect that to be accepted.

[tatanab]

It is something that most of us do, with care I hope which is just as you did. However, I take the shopkeeper's point and I would move it if asked as I would if a householder objected to me leaning a bike against their wall. The fact that your bike is standing on public ground has no relevance to where it is leaning. Could you not have propped your bike against the kerb, assuming there was one and there were no yellow lines.

[QUIST]

Cycleruk, as I stated it was not blocking access. It was leant with consideration, but unfortunately this was not good enough for the shopkeeper.

It was leant there as there was no other place to lean it all the other shops were open- indeed one on the other side as I now recall did not mind when i explained.

Tanatab.There was no kerb to rest it on also are you absolutely sure that the fact that it was leaning from the public highway has no bearing?

Thanks for your replies anyway

[gordy]

A propstand would solve the problem. Leaning a bike against someone's property is impolite, I'd suggest.

[CJ]

Retail property often includes a certain amount of what looks like the pavement (if you look closely there may be an inlaid metal strip or row of studs to demarcate the actual boundary), so even if your bike is on a stand it may be standing on private property.

In some more enlightened countries, shops erect bike parking stands on their frontages to attract potential customers.

[QUIST]

i'm unsure as to whther or not a prop would -i had 2 reasonably heavily laden panniers.

Blocking access is certsinly impolite I wouldnt have a problem if someone left the bike up against my wall. I would rather they secured it to the railings ( which incidentally are not part of my property - I discovered this when I had the deeds search done ).

When another enlightened individual told me to move my bike from railings ( no Napoleon remark aspirants here ) my dad ( a surveyor with Somerset County Council) advised me the railings were probably part of the highway in the sense they were part of the footpath.

I really would like a legal answer to this one way or the other if anyone knows it

[The Mechanic]

I think a legal answer is neither here nor there. As opined above, it is impolite to lean your bike up against someone else's property unless you are a customer at the time. It is this sort of attitude that makes it necessary to have ASBOs.

[snibgo]

I was snapping this "Please do not place cycles against this sign" when a shopkeeper emerged from the shop behind me to ask what I was doing. I explained that it reminded me of signs that simply say, "Do not throw stones at this sign".

He said the council put up the signs, which are really about parking restrictions on the other side, and had complaints that cyclists were locking their bikes to them, causing problems for pedestrians. He went on to say that some people also leant their bikes against his wall, which they weren't allowed to do as the shop property extended some distance into the pavement, and we can see the boundary in the second photo.

He agreed with me that a better solution would be more cycle stands.

[irc]

I was snapping this "Please do not place cycles against this sign" when a shopkeeper emerged from the shop behind me to ask what I was doing. I explained that it reminded me of signs that simply say, "Do not throw stones at this sign".

That annoys me. A council on it's high horse about a parked bike when roads and pavements in town centres are routinely almost completely blocked by parked cars.

[thirdcrank]

It seems strange that a sign should be installed permitting 3 hours parking where there appear to be pedestrian crossing zig-zags banning it almost completely.

[Gearoidmuar]

I would've asked the shopkeeper, "has your number of cycling customers increased?"

Our bikes are mainly laid against the outsides of cafes. I've never had an objection. It's a sign, after all, that they have customers.

[CJ]

It seems strange that a sign should be installed permitting 3 hours parking where there appear to be pedestrian crossing zig-zags banning it almost completely.

The zig-zags forbid parking on the road. So the council appear to have gifted a chunk of the adjacent footway as free parking for motorists. Which makes the little notice forbidding cyclists from also parking against the pavement clutter installed to advertise this gift, even more annoying.

I'd park on the street side of the sign, to inconveninece parkers rather than walkers, and pretend not to have seen the notice on its reverse.