Removal of anti-cycling gates. How?

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 20309
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Removal of anti-cycling gates. How?

Post by mjr »

Only cycle streets lets you upload photos, of those three. I believe it can extract metadata.
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
gaz
Posts: 14649
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent

Re: Removal of anti-cycling gates. How?

Post by gaz »

On Cyclescape, assuming that you intend to upload the location of each barrier individually as an "issue", it also allows you to upload photographs.
High on a cocktail of flossy teacakes and marmalade
ferdinand
Posts: 376
Joined: 31 Oct 2014, 6:59pm

Re: Removal of anti-cycling gates. How?

Post by ferdinand »

Having played around, it seems that neither of the above are able to pull location data from an uploaded photograph, so you are forced to either do the report in the field to pick up the location from the device or Hunt and click on a map when you get home.

The best site for my purposes may be Fix My Street as that has reporting capabilities by Council and sends a request with each report.

It is also non cycling specific so may get a response :mrgreen:

Discovered another 10 or so Gates last night.

They build lovely cycle paths then put them in cages so no one uses them. Why? It's all a plot by labradors.

Ferdinand
ferdinand
Posts: 376
Joined: 31 Oct 2014, 6:59pm

Re: Removal of anti-cycling gates. How?

Post by ferdinand »

This is another type of barrier I met today, does anyone know what this type is called?

20150727-charnwood-street-playground-barrier.jpg


It is on a main signposted cycle route through a country park, where there are several, and this one is on the main path to a children's playground.

The duck-gate is at about 1.25m height, and is about .7m wide, combined with a very tight, narrow, kissing gate. Again it seems to date to just before 2000.

Thanks

Ferdinand
sirmy
Posts: 608
Joined: 11 Mar 2009, 10:53am

Re: Removal of anti-cycling gates. How?

Post by sirmy »

Ferdinand appears to be placing a lot of emphasis on the 1970 Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act which says in section 20 para 1 (a) "no statutory provision prohibiting or restricting the use of footways shall prohibit or restrict the use of that vehicle on a footway;" using the definition of a footway from the 1980 highways act. This states "footway " means a way comprised in a highway which
also comprises a carriageway, being a way over which the public have a right of way on foot only ;" (para 328).

Using this definition most of the paths refered to, nd certainly those shown in pictures, in this thread would not be covered by this clause as they are not part of, or run paralell to (to pul in the section of the 1835 HA which prevents cycling on a footway) a carriageway. Most of these barriers would probably fall under the disability discrimation act which is wolly in places where outdoor access is concerned (uses terms like wher practicable).
Bicycler
Posts: 3400
Joined: 4 Dec 2013, 3:33pm

Re: Removal of anti-cycling gates. How?

Post by Bicycler »

sirmy wrote:Ferdinand appears to be placing a lot of emphasis on the 1970 Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act which says in section 20 para 1 (a) "no statutory provision prohibiting or restricting the use of footways shall prohibit or restrict the use of that vehicle on a footway;" using the definition of a footway from the 1980 highways act. This states "footway " means a way comprised in a highway which
also comprises a carriageway, being a way over which the public have a right of way on foot only ;" (para 328).

Using this definition most of the paths refered to, nd certainly those shown in pictures, in this thread would not be covered by this clause as they are not part of, or run paralell to (to pul in the section of the 1835 HA which prevents cycling on a footway) a carriageway. Most of these barriers would probably fall under the disability discrimation act which is wolly in places where outdoor access is concerned (uses terms like wher practicable).

The defence of practicability is a point I did try to make upthread.

You've omitted the full extent of the meaning of 'footway' in the 1970 Act:
(2) In this section — “footway” means a way which is a footway, footpath or bridleway within the meaning of the Highways Act 1980

A fair number of the paths this thread is concerned with will be footpaths or bridleways, though also many will not.

Nevertheless I agree that Ferdinand may be attaching too much importance to the 1970 Act. The law was intended to remove legal prohibitions and restrictions aimed at vehicles from inadvertently banning disabled people from paths. It doesn't in itself prevent barriers from having been legally placed.
ferdinand
Posts: 376
Joined: 31 Oct 2014, 6:59pm

Re: Removal of anti-cycling gates. How?

Post by ferdinand »

I ran into an example of the non-effectiveness of these barriers last Saturday PM.

[youtube]uSE-WiS-ekc[/youtube]

Can anyone identify the type of motorbike? Apols for the slightly untidy last half-second.

I've also had a few interesting phone calls to Council Officers and the EHRC helpline, which I'll update later.

Ferdinand
ferdinand
Posts: 376
Joined: 31 Oct 2014, 6:59pm

Re: Removal of anti-cycling gates. How?

Post by ferdinand »

Just put in my first polite request to Derbyshire County for removal or adjustment of a K-Gate. This one:

k-gate-1-s.jpg
k-gate-1-s.jpg (86.24 KiB) Viewed 6067 times


The gap is 74cm.
There should be no speed issue due to that sharpish bend and good sightlines.
It is the only one left on an excellent 7 mile trail.
It is a Greenway, so specifically promoted as Access for All.
The one on the other side of the road is just a gap in accordance with the rules.
The paths are quite heavily used.
It is on NCN 67.

Streetview here:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.14241 ... 312!8i6656

Now to wait.

(They have an amazing horse control maze which must have cost a fortune, now redundant on the other side).

Ferdinand
Bicycler
Posts: 3400
Joined: 4 Dec 2013, 3:33pm

Re: Removal of anti-cycling gates. How?

Post by Bicycler »

ferdinand wrote:(They have an amazing horse control maze which must have cost a fortune, now redundant on the other side).

:lol:
They probably need to replace the barrier to get their money's worth :wink:
sirmy
Posts: 608
Joined: 11 Mar 2009, 10:53am

Re: Removal of anti-cycling gates. How?

Post by sirmy »

Bicycler you miss the point of part of your own post - the definition of a footway for the 1970 disablity act is the one given by the 1980 Highway Act which I gave. As this definition specifically states that a footway is part of a carriageway - that is a path alongside a carriage not seperated from it by any fencing (a loose definition of the width of a carraigeway is that it covers all the land between adjacent fences or hedges), so a repurposed rail ine would not meet the definition required.
Bicycler
Posts: 3400
Joined: 4 Dec 2013, 3:33pm

Re: Removal of anti-cycling gates. How?

Post by Bicycler »

sirmy wrote:Bicycler you miss the point of part of your own post - the definition of a footway for the 1970 disablity act is the one given by the 1980 Highway Act which I gave.

Hi, no I'm confident of my ground. I think you are mistaken. The definition of 'footway' in the 1970 act is much wider than in the 1980 Act. Look at the exact wording from the 1970 Act:
(2) In this section — “footway” means a way which is a footway, footpath or bridleway within the meaning of the Highways Act 1980

So a 1970 Act 'footway' includes "footways", "footpaths" and "bridleways" as defined in the HA 1980.
From the HA 1980:
“footway” means a way comprised in a highway which also comprises a carriageway, being a way over which the public have a right of way on foot only

“footpath” means a highway over which the public have a right of way on foot only, not being a footway

“bridleway” means a highway over which the public have the following, but no other, rights of way, that is to say, a right of way on foot and a right of way on horseback or leading a horse, with or without a right to drive animals of any description along the highway

The intention was clearly to permit those using "invalid carriages" to use all the same highways as those on foot. This broad definition of footway included all the existing non-vehicular highways (or parts of highways in the case of pavements).

sirmy wrote:As this definition specifically states that a footway is part of a carriageway - that is a path alongside a carriage not seperated from it by any fencing (a loose definition of the width of a carraigeway is that it covers all the land between adjacent fences or hedges).

"Carriageway" is a very old term which was once (and is sometimes still) used to refer to a vehicular highway in its entirety. However, within the context of the HA 1980:
“carriageway” means a way constituting or comprised in a highway, being a way (other than a cycle track) over which the public have a right of way for the passage of vehicles;

Now if we look back at the HA 1980 definition of footway I quoted above, we see that in the context of the 1980 Act they both refer to distinct parts of a vehicular road. The carriageway is the vehicular bit, the footway is the pedestrian bit (pavement).

sirmy wrote: so a repurposed rail ine would not meet the definition required

My point in the earlier post was that the 1970 Act merely removed prohibitions, it did not explicitly grant a right of way for invalid carriages. So I think you are right to question its usefulness in dealing with barriers. It is probably now largely obsolete because the idea of disabled people being prosecuted for using pedestrian paths would be ridiculous. But, time moves on apace and (as you and Ferdinand have noted) more modern equality legislation is stronger. The question of applicability has been well covered in this thread. Many paths will be highways, others will not. Councils will have responsibility to ensure disabled people are considered in the construction of highways and any other routes they provide, though as you note the issue of practicability raises its head.
ferdinand
Posts: 376
Joined: 31 Oct 2014, 6:59pm

Re: Removal of anti-cycling gates. How?

Post by ferdinand »

Small update.

I have received the numbers back for ASB incidents involving motorcycles in the Ashfield District for the last 6 years from a very efficient police information officer. The number is quite low, and they have supplied numbers for incidents related to "footpaths", "bridleways" and "not stated" (ie the others).

Here is the table supplied for the area, which has a population of approximately 120,000 and an area of around 40 sq miles.

2010-2015-asb-incidents-ashfield-600.gif


Total reports of incidents are around 12 per year, with a downward trend and only 4 out of 77 referring to footpath or bridleway. There seem to be no cautions, warnings, or convictions at all.

The breakdown is by Police Beat, which is a subset of Police Neighbourhood.

I have gone back to confirm those negative findings, and for maps of the Police Beats.

Next time I will probably ask for any reports mentioning "cyclepath".

Link to FOI request.
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ ... l_use_of_m

Though the data can be quibbled with on all sorts of bases, and I would need to be almost sending in database queries to get much further, there is enough there to be useful.

Ferdinand
ferdinand
Posts: 376
Joined: 31 Oct 2014, 6:59pm

Re: Removal of anti-cycling gates. How?

Post by ferdinand »

A brief further update.

I now have responses to my FOI requests onm several things, in case anyone is tracking the wording and responses needed.

1 - Catchment areas for schools (relevant for looking at local desire lines and potential cyclist traffic)

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ ... hools_in_a

2 - List of parks and green spaces managed by the local dstrict council:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ ... parks_mana

I wonder if they have missed any.

3 - ASB reports involving motorbikes on footpaths / bridleways to the District Council:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ ... use_of_m_2

Two of the three required clarification to come under the 2 man day threshold, and the third may require a clarification on whether the ASB reports relate to just footpaths/bridleways or if some relate to payments.

The Community Protection team from the DC seem to have more reports than the police, and the two may need reconciling somehow. The total is less than 20 reports a year for an 40sq mile area with a population of about 120k.

Next step is to focus on particular places and routes to see what can be removed. Larger area analysis may be difficult due to woolly stats definitions etc.

I might start with my local park/rec which is completely surrounded by A Barriers exclusing mobility scooters and double buggies unless a long detour is taken, and that via a non-sealed route.

Ferdinand
calladine-park.jpg
sirmy
Posts: 608
Joined: 11 Mar 2009, 10:53am

Re: Removal of anti-cycling gates. How?

Post by sirmy »

Bicycler the definition of a footway in the 1970 is irrelevaent as the Disabled and Chronically Sick Act specifies that the defintion of a footway to be used in conjunction with the act is the one given in the 1980 Highways Act via an ammendment to the act. So while the defintion of a footway may be broader in the 1970 act it would be a mistake to interpret the act in terms of this definition. The intention of this clause was not allow access to all paths accessible on foot to people in invalid carriages but to remove obstacles to the passage of invalid carriages along footways (which would have been illegal under the 1835 HA), next to carriagewas, on streets. To try to extend the term "footway" to include all paths accessible on foot is wrong. Your use of the term carriageway is also incorrect as to include a footway as part of the carriageway would mean it was legal to drive a vehicle along a footway which it isn't (1835 highways act sec 72) which prohibits a “carriage of any description” being used on a footway - hence this part of the 1970 act. They are not both parts of "a vehicular road" but are seperate entities running adjacent or paralelll to each other with very different access rights - you can drive a vehicle on a carriageway you cannot drive (except in certain specific instances) a vehicle on a footway (http://www.roadswerenotbuiltforcars.com/1835highwayact/).

The upshot of this is that the 1970 act only applies to footways (paths alongside roads) and not to the types of paths identified in the original and subsequent postings and would not be applicable in an application to remove these barriers
Bicycler
Posts: 3400
Joined: 4 Dec 2013, 3:33pm

Re: Removal of anti-cycling gates. How?

Post by Bicycler »

I'm afraid I don't follow. The definition is written in black and white.
As enacted the wording from the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 was:
" footway " means a way which is a footway, footpath or bridleway within the meaning of the Highways Act 1959"
as amended it says
“footway” means a way which is a footway, footpath or bridleway within the meaning of the Highways Act 1980
The relevant definitions in the two Highways Acts are the same.
I don't know how you can interpret either version of that clause as only relating to pavements. I don't claim that it includes all pedestrian paths but it clearly includes highways which are footways, footpaths or bridleways.

I'm not going to get into the road/carriageway definition because it's not really relevant to this thread and the terms are used inconsistently. It is enough that we agree on the important bit that for the purposes of the 1980 Act, the bit vehicles drive down is a carriageway and the bit pedestrians walk down is the footway.

Sorry if this has become a bit of a distraction from your thread Ferdinand. I'm glad to hear that you are still working away on this issue and I wish you every success in getting the barriers removed :D
Post Reply