Cycling UK Forum

I don't think it really matters what the rule is - just so long as there's some sort of hive mentality... ie the bulk of the animals adhere to it.

One day, I’ll make the effort to find out for sure, but the Redway Code does say: Redways are part of the bridleway network, so riding horses on them is allowed.

Beyond the obligation to keep one useable for its intended purpose at a very basic level, the decision as to how to manage and surface a bridleway rests with the landowner, in this case a combination of MK Council and MK Parks Trust, so they may actually have no obligation in law to keep them as they do, simply a load of electors, plus multiple Parish Councils, in one case, and trustees in the other, to keep their noses to the grindstone. Seems to work reasonably well whatever the case.

Normally it works like walking down the street: you make eye contact and avoid each other. That's fine on quiet paths.

On the Bristol-Bath railway path, it's far busier and there are more "occasional" users with little sense of danger. I run a front light and use the bell if it's obvious someone hasn't seen me.

A recent ruling in Scotland 'Rules of the road don’t apply'
https://www.cyclelawscotland.co.uk/blog ... dont-apply

Paulatic wrote: ↑8 Apr 2024, 2:42pm A recent ruling in Scotland 'Rules of the road don’t apply'
https://www.cyclelawscotland.co.uk/blog ... dont-apply

Lord Sandison is probably a scofflaw tit who weaves and chops all over the place on cycleways!

But those two sections of NCN don't appear to have any other status such as bridleway, footpath or whatever and there is a small possibility that Scottish Law doesn't have a definition of highway that includes cycleways, cycleway/footways, "shared use paths" and so on, unlike English Law.

Ultimately, the ruling may been the same even if Lord Sandison thought the rules of the road applied: overtaking at 20+mph through a junction (itself contrary to Highway Code Rule 167), across the nose of a rider who could yet enter your path, is not riding so that you can stop safely within what you can see to be clear, which is one of the main rules of the road (Highway Code Rule 126), so liability probably should be shared 50-50 between the daft overtake and the daft pulling out, as it was.

Edit to add: I also note one "expert" giving evidence to Lord Sandison was famous cycleway-hater John Franklin and he put forwards 10mph as an appropriate speed on these cycleways, contrary to DfT guidance which doesn't seem to be considered.