Legal types: Walking your bike on a Footway or a Footpath

[EdinburghFixed]

In Scotland you are basically OK to ride your bike wherever you like except on pavements which run beside roads*. You can ride without fear of retribution on all paths which are not actually alongside tarmac...

But if both feet are on the ground you can do just as you please, the law does not differentiate whether you are holding a bike at all (see Basil's link which quotes the case law). There would need to be a specific bylaw against carrying a bike, or parts thereof, for that to be illegal.

In Edinburgh the council have always maintained 'no cycling' signs across the Meadows and Bruntsfield links, but the Land Reform Act specifically gives you the right to ignore them, which nobody seemed to realise until quite recently

In England I suspect you might fall foul of all that medieval land law, but I don't think it will be a traffic offence, just trespass?

* or people’s gardens, farmyards, and land in which crops have been sown or are growing. Plus you can't ride over a golf course (should be obvious) but can walk across.

[thirdcrank]

Having said that, it's like the rule on not being allowed to stop on a footpath - very unlikely that anyone would either know of the rule or enforce it.

You could probably stand still indefinitely on a lot of footways, perhaps even die and nobody might notice but, the traditional Dickson of Dock Green type instruction 'Move along, please' has a very long history. Ignore it, especially if it is directed at you personally rather than a big group, and expect to be locked up. It's obstructing the highway, which doesn't mean blocking it, just hogging the bit you are standing on. Your rights to use the highway on foot are as a 'passenger' i.e. to pass and repass.

[dan_b]

I have a dim and dusty recollection of a case in scottish law (so not crank v brooks) where the ruling was that the bicycle was an "aid to pedestrianism". Googling may turn up more

[thirdcrank]

The Scottish case was mentioned in a letter published in the CTC mag last year from a QC - mine usually go in the bin fairly quickly so I cannot turn it up.

[meic]

I do not see how you can be in violation of any rule if you are carrying your bike on your back or shoulder. It is not a crime to be in possesion of a cycle (Yet!)
There is an urban myth of someone being prosecuted for driving over a green to get to his house. Having got off with it the Police watched out for him to drive out of the house. On seeing the Police he got a group of friends to carry it across the green.

[Phil_Lee]

What Phil_Lee said regarding footways (pavements).


But for footpaths, I believe that technically you are not allowed to push or ride your bike on them - this I got from a session with Colin Palmer and if anyone knows then it ought to be him! Having said that, it's like the rule on not being allowed to stop on a footpath - very unlikely that anyone would either know of the rule or enforce it.

I would think that the precise wording of the Crank vs Brooks judgement would specifically rule out any discrepancy between footpaths and footways, as it clearly says "But the fact that she had the bicycle in her hand and was walking does not create any difference from a case where she is walking without a bicycle in her hand."

That would seem to set a clear precedent that there is no legal way of discriminating between a pedestrian pushing a bicycle and a pedestrian not pushing one. It is actually detailed enough to say that it is the use of both feet that is the discriminating factor - so you can even be astride the bike as long as you are walking, although it would seem to say that using a scooter would be equivalent to riding a bicycle.

[EdinburghFixed]

Isn't that to be expected? Surely you wouldn't scooter on the pavement...

[dan_b]

Well, that's an interesting question. There's no gearing of any kind, so you're more or less limited to walking pace and you can stop dead by putting your feet on the floor - if scooters aren't suitable for pavement use, realistically nor are prams and pushchairs

[MarySkater]

There's no gearing of any kind, so you're more or less limited to walking pace

I don't recall seeing a speeding scooter, but I've seen people hit impressive speeds downhill with skateboards or rollerblades. Prams etc ought to have a feet-on-the-ground person attached to prevent this...

[dan_b]

I've hit upwards of 60km/h downhill on inline skates (only in circumstances that I knew there was nothing coming the other way and someone stationed at the bottom), so yes. I wouldn't do that on the pavement.

Point is with a scooter, though: you can just step off it and unless you drop the handlebars then both you and it will come to a stop instantly

[bodach]

It will no doubt upset the cranks amongst us but in Scotland you can cycle on a footpath legally tho' not on a roadside pavement unless there is a red line on the road side which indicates that it is a shared bike and pedestrian path.An example of this which will no doubt be familiar to all is between Dingwall and the Maryburgh roundabout where a new cyclepath (which can be used by pedestrians) gives access to the Black Isle without using the horrendous main road.

[thirdcrank]

... in Scotland you can cycle on a footpath legally tho' not on a roadside pavement ...

Yes. Edinburgh fixed has aready got us up to speed on that one. I suppose the big difference is that in England, if you can ride a bike on a footpath, we don't call it a footpath. It's a bridle path - not to be confused with the brida l path.