Why do they do it?

Commuting, Day rides, Audax, Incidents, etc.
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Why do they do it?

Post by thirdcrank »

squeaker wrote: 6 Aug 2022, 2:01pm ...
All the Parish got was the public notice I posted earlier, so no extra detail.
Thanks. I'll reiterate my hope that these works will be completed quickly and without incident such as injury or a rider receiving a fixed penalty from a PCSO.
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 20308
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Why do they do it?

Post by mjr »

cycle tramp wrote: 6 Aug 2022, 1:10pm Found it! Section 171 of the 1980 highways act gives the local authority the control of who digs up the road, how they do it and how they put it all back again.
Therefore the highways acts cannot be suspended when a road is closed to traffic, for works, as the local authority would, by default , lose these rights.

Thank you for your time and patience in this matter :D
You're welcome, but rebutting these repeated misinterpretations is taking great patience, although not much time.

The argument (as I understand it) is not that the Highways Acts are somehow suspended, or that the highway has been permanently closed ("stopped up" in legal terms), but that the cycling-prohibiting section does not currently apply to that footway because it is the entire legal road for the duration of the works and no longer "by the side" of it, as required by the Act.

That requirement may have been included in the law by wise legislators to prevent councils using a series of temporary closures to block highways to horse-riders without using the permanent "stopping up" process.
thirdcrank wrote: 6 Aug 2022, 2:12pm I'll reiterate my hope that these works will be completed quickly and without incident such as injury or a rider receiving a fixed penalty from a PCSO.
Amen to that. I wish highways authorities would put more pressure on roadmenders not to encourage these sorts of avoidable conflict.
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.
cycle tramp
Posts: 3532
Joined: 5 Aug 2009, 7:22pm

Re: Why do they do it?

Post by cycle tramp »

mjr wrote: 8 Aug 2022, 12:31pm
cycle tramp wrote: 6 Aug 2022, 1:10pm Found it! Section 171 of the 1980 highways act gives the local authority the control of who digs up the road, how they do it and how they put it all back again.
Therefore the highways acts cannot be suspended when a road is closed to traffic, for works, as the local authority would, by default , lose these rights.

Thank you for your time and patience in this matter :D
You're welcome, but rebutting these repeated misinterpretations is taking great patience, although not much time.

The argument (as I understand it) is not that the Highways Acts are somehow suspended, or that the highway has been permanently closed ("stopped up" in legal terms), but that the cycling-prohibiting section does not currently apply to that footway because it is the entire legal road for the duration of the works and no longer "by the side" of it, as required by the Act.

That requirement may have been included in the law by wise legislators to prevent councils using a series of temporary closures to block highways to horse-riders without using the permanent "stopping up"
Oh the continued rebuttal is because you're wrong. You're wrong in your understanding and because this is a public forum I'd hate to see someone think you're right and cycle on a footpath and then actually hurt a pedestrian. If you like, think of it as my public service.

If you think about it how can it be right to ride a bike, or even walk a horse down a footway. I work with horses every weekend - they don't like walking towards people any more than anyone wants a horse walking towards them.
As regards to cycling, if its not safe for a cyclist to ride on the pavement when there is room for a pedestrian to step into the road to avoid them, how come it's safe for cyclists and pedestrians to be on the footway together where they have less room to avoid each other due to work barriers? The daily mail and express would have a field day :-)

I've checked the highway code and I can't find anything about using footways when the road is closed, and I've checked the highways act and can't find anything there either. I've been trained to answer highways enquiries from the public, and other road users using the footway wasn't never ever mentioned in any circumstance and I had five years practical experience of that job, where again, other road users using the footway hasn't turned up. I have found nothing which supports your understanding.

This isn't the Donald Trump show, where, if you repeat something enough times, it magically becomes true. During your assertions you've made no reference as to where any third party may find the rules to which you keep referring. And like the worst of councillors I have dealt with, you just keep on and on despite the overwhelming logic against your argument with nothing to offer in your argument other than 'I believe' or 'it is my understanding' or 'I'm representing a point of view which suggests....' or you suddenly find a new factor to try and throw in like the one above about horses...

Find your reference and come back to me and I will gladly retract my last statement :-D I'm a professional arguer, I've had training and in the past I've had conversations like this one go on for months.
Motorhead: god was never on your sidehttps://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&client=m ... +your+side
cycle tramp
Posts: 3532
Joined: 5 Aug 2009, 7:22pm

Re: Why do they do it?

Post by cycle tramp »

Additional... and here's the thing. If you accept that the highways acts are in existence when the road is closed and tje highways act confirms you may not cycle on the footway and that there are no other clauses otherwise listed on any of tge highways acts, then you may not cycle on the footway. Whether the road by the side of it is dug up or otherwise, it exists legally and will continue to exist legally until it is stopped-up.
Motorhead: god was never on your sidehttps://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&client=m ... +your+side
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 20308
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Why do they do it?

Post by mjr »

cycle tramp wrote: 8 Aug 2022, 9:30pm Oh the continued rebuttal is because you're wrong. You're wrong in your understanding and because this is a public forum I'd hate to see someone think you're right and cycle on a footpath and then actually hurt a pedestrian. If you like, think of it as my public service.
It is a very public disservice to keep suggesting that hurting a pedestrian is an inevitable consequence of cycling on a footpath. It is not. Hurting pedestrians, or even troubling them more than reasonably avoidable, is a bad thing and I hope we can all agree on that.
If you think about it how can it be right to ride a bike, or even walk a horse down a footway.
And again, back to this error. A highway consisting only of a right of way on foot is basically a footpath. There is no footway in that case, because the area for foot passengers is not by the side of anything.

I suggest that it can be morally right to ride a bike down a footpath with due caution when that results in a smaller and shorter-lasting obstruction to any walkers than walking with the bike would.
As regards to cycling, if its not safe for a cyclist to ride on the pavement when there is room for a pedestrian to step into the road to avoid them, how come it's safe for cyclists and pedestrians to be on the footway together where they have less room to avoid each other due to work barriers? The daily mail and express would have a field day :-)
Please think it through: a stopped mounted cyclist is smaller and less hazardous than someone pushing a bike, and whoever set those roadworks up decided there's enough room to be safe to pass a pushed bike, so it must be safe to pass someone mounted on a bike.

The Heil and Express may have a field day but they hate bikes and don't think things through. I would hope that no bit of our country is governed by that level of unthinking.
I've checked the highway code and I can't find anything about using footways when the road is closed, and I've checked the highways act and can't find anything there either. [...]
The highway code is not comprehensive and in addition to the Highways Acts (all of the extant ones), there's also the Road Traffic Act, Road Traffic Regulation Act, New Roads and Street Works Act and probably others. Also, if your earlier comment that "'highway' has always included any footpaths" is correct then there's also the Countryside and Rights of Way Act. Feel free to check them all. You will find no prohibition on cycling on a foot-only highway.

There's also no clear permission to ride or to push a bike along it, but as the great Cyndi Lauper once said, "ain't no law against it yet". We don't live in an authoritarian state where only things specifically allowed in legislation are legal.
I've been trained to answer highways enquiries from the public, and other road users using the footway wasn't never ever mentioned in any circumstance and I had five years practical experience of that job, where again, other road users using the footway hasn't turned up. I have found nothing which supports your understanding.
Well, training for highways enquiries officers needs improving, so that's not a big surprise.

And I'm shocked if in five years, no-one ever complained to you about motorists using the footway. Maybe it was in London (where stricter law applies), maybe the police (or others) in your area were great at clearing obstructions before they caused complaint, or maybe walkers there had given up.
This isn't the Donald Trump show, where, if you repeat something enough times, it magically becomes true.
No, so how about you stop repeating that you can't find anything permitting it and show us what law you believe makes cycling on that footpath (with due caution, giving way to pedestrians, stopping when necessary) an offence?
During your assertions you've made no reference as to where any third party may find the rules to which you keep referring. [...]
I've linked to the relevant law (which pointedly doesn't make cycling on this layout an offence) and I've referred to the Code of Practice on Safety at Street Works (which should have avoided the whole conflict if it had been complied with, as legally required).
Find your reference and come back to me and I will gladly retract my last statement :-D
viewtopic.php?p=1713771&hilit=the+law+o ... s#p1713771
I'm a professional arguer, I've had training and in the past I've had conversations like this one go on for months.
Whereas I advocate for cycling because I enjoy cycling, I've had training in that and I'm quite familiar with refusenik officers who keep making rules up while failing to support their believe with any evidence. If you can't or won't cite the law which you feel makes it an offence, I think this conversation has essentially reached its conclusion.
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.
User avatar
foxyrider
Posts: 6044
Joined: 29 Aug 2011, 10:25am
Location: Sheffield, South Yorkshire

Re: Why do they do it?

Post by foxyrider »

hear, hear mjr!
Convention? what's that then?
Airnimal Chameleon touring, Orbit Pro hack, Orbit Photon audax, Focus Mares AX tour, Peugeot Carbon sportive, Owen Blower vintage race - all running Tulio's finest!
cycle tramp
Posts: 3532
Joined: 5 Aug 2009, 7:22pm

Re: Why do they do it?

Post by cycle tramp »

mjr wrote: 9 Aug 2022, 1:21pm
And again, back to this error. A highway consisting only of a right of way on foot is basically a footpath. There is no footway in that case, because the area for foot passengers is not by the side of anything.

The Countryside and Rights of Way Act. Feel free to check them all. You will find no prohibition on cycling on a foot-only highway.
Just a couple of things -
I) because a road has been dug up, and closed to traffic, doesn't in all legally, stop it from existing. Its plotted on the maps, the rto are still in place and it still is adopted by the local authority. As a result of this the footway to the side of the road remains a footway as previously described, or a pavement as it is referred to now, and as such you are not permitted to cycle on it

II) in regards to footpaths, it is worth remembering that legally they are only open to walkers and wheel chair users (unless additional permission is granted by the land owner). The landowner can refuse your rights to cross their land should you cycle, ride a unicorn or even a chariot towed by several gaint tortoises. The landowner is permitted to call the police should you not remove yourself from their land. The landowner is not permitted to shoot you and feed your remains to their pigs, or knock you unconscious and let their chickens peck you to death
Motorhead: god was never on your sidehttps://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&client=m ... +your+side
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 20308
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Why do they do it?

Post by mjr »

I'm still not seeing any prohibiting law cited, Mr Cycle Trump.
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.
cycle tramp
Posts: 3532
Joined: 5 Aug 2009, 7:22pm

Re: Why do they do it?

Post by cycle tramp »

mjr wrote: 9 Aug 2022, 11:28pm I'm still not seeing any prohibiting law cited, Mr Cycle Trump.
Nor I you :-)
However there is that one in the highway code about not cycling the the pavement - that's the one which will get you the fixed penalty fine from a police officer...

Then there's the 1988 roads traffic act about not obeying temporary signs erected by road workers.. seem to remember that one carries a 250 pound fine last time I looked

And after all that if I did cycle on the pavement, past the sign and collided with a pedestrian that's either careless cycling or furious cycling depending on the injuries, and the law agencies. I would look them up but... at this point everyone else has stopped caring about this thread.

I mean I've not changed your mind, have I? And you can't change my mind. I mean the best you can do is cycle on the pavement around road works, then get a fixed penalty fine for doing so and then go to court and argue that the road didn't exist. That's a bit extreme, and when you loose you'd have all the damages to pay*. I mean I know we don't see eye to eye, but I don't hate you that much :-D

(*do you ever think you'll find a Judge which believes that because the road has been dug up suddenly cyclists get extra rights?)
Motorhead: god was never on your sidehttps://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&client=m ... +your+side
User avatar
Paulatic
Posts: 7804
Joined: 2 Feb 2014, 1:03pm
Location: 24 Hours from Lands End

Re: Why do they do it?

Post by Paulatic »

cycle tramp wrote: 9 Aug 2022, 11:29pm [

Then there's the 1988 roads traffic act about not obeying temporary signs erected by road workers.. seem to remember that one carries a 250 pound fine last time I looked
Sounds like I’ve just blown £2000 in the last week alone.
I passed this sign last week at home
78872C26-6641-400B-85D9-A9E46DC0FC3E.jpeg
That sign was put there the hot Tuesday in July while fire crews tackled a forestry fire.
My last three days here in N Yorks I’ve gone through seven similar signs where the road wasn’t closed.
The signs IMV are worthless.
Whatever I am, wherever I am, this is me. This is my life

https://stcleve.wordpress.com/category/lejog/
E2E info
cycle tramp
Posts: 3532
Joined: 5 Aug 2009, 7:22pm

Re: Why do they do it?

Post by cycle tramp »

Paulatic wrote: 10 Aug 2022, 6:55am
cycle tramp wrote: 9 Aug 2022, 11:29pm [

Then there's the 1988 roads traffic act about not obeying temporary signs erected by road workers.. seem to remember that one carries a 250 pound fine last time I looked
Sounds like I’ve just blown £2000 in the last week alone.
I passed this sign last week at home
78872C26-6641-400B-85D9-A9E46DC0FC3E.jpeg
That sign was put there the hot Tuesday in July while fire crews tackled a forestry fire.
My last three days here in N Yorks I’ve gone through seven similar signs where the road wasn’t closed.
The signs IMV are worthless.
That's nice for you.... doesn't change anything though, does it?
The sign to which Squeaker referred was placed there following a complaint by a resident, according to Squeaker felt threatened and was verbally abused.
So far very few on this thread (other than myself) have expressed any remorse over the situation, which given the level of some posts is disappointing.
And as noted by another contributor to this thread, if we replaced the word cyclist with motorist and pedestrians with cyclist we'd have a much similar thread to the daily mail.
Throughout this thread there has been an under current of emotion which reads 'how dare someone tell me where I can and where I can't cycle'. Its like suddenly it's a personal affront to allow pedestrians to actually claim a piece of footway for themselves, where all they want to do is walk safely to and from a to b.
Given this level of self righteousness, do we really wonder why we have a hard time in the press?
Motorhead: god was never on your sidehttps://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&client=m ... +your+side
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Why do they do it?

Post by thirdcrank »

Re the legalities at the location the subject of this thread. It all depends on what the temporary traffic regulation order says. Its text doesn't seem to be online so it would need somebody, preferably a resident of (West?) Sussex to inquire. They would be entitled to inspect it but IME the authority may just send a paper copy. After cutting through all the verbiage, the relevant bit will say something like "closed to all traffic" in which case there will be exceptions eg pedestrians and perhaps "pedal cycles pushed by hand." Or variations.

If a cyclist were to receive a PCSO ticket for the Highways Act offence, then they may have a loophole if the offence is contrary to the TTRO. A bit of a pyrrhic victory as they'd be asking for the £80 (?) fixed penalty to be replaced by a prosecution with the possibility of a bigger fine and the certainty of costs and the victim surcharge.

Re Advisoey signs more generally, they do only give advice but it's not inevitably bad advice. It's often the case that when these are put out in an emergency by local authority people - flooding, fallen tree, big hole in road - they may not be removed with the same promptness - some are out almost indefinitely. It's generally easier for a cyclist to check the situation for a possible route through than for the driver of a motor vehicle.

I'd be particularly cautious when roads are closed for fire fighting purposes. Fire fighters have the power to close roads and direct traffic.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/21/section/44

I imagine that when they are fully committed they won't bother taking names and addresses if a cyclist simply slips by, but they might be more robust with anybody whose thoughtlessness obstructed the firefighting.
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 20308
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Why do they do it?

Post by mjr »

cycle tramp wrote: 10 Aug 2022, 9:38am The sign to which Squeaker referred was placed there following a complaint by a resident, according to Squeaker felt threatened and was verbally abused.
So far very few on this thread (other than myself) have expressed any remorse over the situation, which given the level of some posts is disappointing.
Just to be clear for the hard of thinking, I think it's awful if any walker is intimidated and verbally abused. However, I feel the intimidation and abuse are the problems and I do not think that cycling on that footway is necessarily a problem in itself, or that putting up passive-aggressive information signs in revenge is a good idea. "Pedestrian Priority" signs would probably have been more likely to achieve the desired result, if it was safe space for walking, rather than revenge.
Throughout this thread there has been an under current of emotion which reads 'how dare someone tell me where I can and where I can't cycle'.
Emotion is famously difficult to estimate from text. I felt no such emotion, but I do feel there have been other emotions from those who journeys have apparently never been disrupted by the failures to follow the code of practice in full, in letter and spirit. More than once, I've had to choose between cycling a terrible fast A road diversion and missing my connecting train or, in one case, ferry, because a closure wasn't signposted far enough back up the cycle route to take a better alternative.

If a footway had been available in those places, I would probably have used it, and I would probably have ridden it in order to minimise the inconvenience to walkers: in one case, me trying to push a fully-loaded tour bike past a walker would have a real risk of it tipping over onto them (it tipped at least once that tour), which would not happen if I was astride it. I would, of course, have stopped while any passed and not mouthed off at them.

The thread title asked "why do they do it?" so people shouldn't really get surprised that the question is answered.
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.
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 20308
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Why do they do it?

Post by mjr »

thirdcrank wrote: 10 Aug 2022, 10:19am Re Advisoey signs more generally, they do only give advice but it's not inevitably bad advice.
Not inevitably, but usually, wouldn't you say? My mind always goes to the widespread thoughtless use of "CYCLISTS DISMOUNT" and two local examples: one where the cycle track across a bridge is about 80cm wide, which is just enough for most cyclists to ride across (riders of most recumbents and adapted cyclists are stuffed, though, but it predates the current Equalities Act), but not walk a bike across; and one where cyclists are expected to give way to cross a wide single-carriageway road that used to be 60mph limit, which is of course far easier to do safely at cycling speed than pushing speed.
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.
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Why do they do it?

Post by thirdcrank »

mjr wrote: 10 Aug 2022, 11:13am
thirdcrank wrote: 10 Aug 2022, 10:19am Re Advisoey signs more generally, they do only give advice but it's not inevitably bad advice.
Not inevitably, but usually, wouldn't you say? My mind always goes to the widespread thoughtless use of "CYCLISTS DISMOUNT" and two local examples: one where the cycle track across a bridge is about 80cm wide, which is just enough for most cyclists to ride across (riders of most recumbents and adapted cyclists are stuffed, though, but it predates the current Equalities Act), but not walk a bike across; and one where cyclists are expected to give way to cross a wide single-carriageway road that used to be 60mph limit, which is of course far easier to do safely at cycling speed than pushing speed.
I can only say that this subject is so much wider than "CYCLISTS DISMOUNT" signs even though there is one here. And FWIW, if, as I believe, riding on the footway in the location covered in this thread is illegal, then the dismount advice here seems sound.

More widely, if there is an emergency - and a reference has been made to fire-fighting - then organising emergency diversions can be very difficult, especially out-of-hours when highways departments tend to be shut. I've often faced this situation. And that was in the days when highways departments direct works were much bigger than today. I presume that signs sometimes remaining out longer than needed is the result of poor follow-up by highway authorities.
Post Reply