Cycling between Free School Lane and Benet Street
Robin
> Cycling is allowed on footpaths (as opposed to footways alongside
> carriageways) unless signed otherwise.
I then asked:
> How does this apply to the short bit of footpath between Free
> School Lane and Benet Street? The only sign there is a old white
> one, only facing Benet Street and I guess not official (it
> doesn't look like a real highway sign).
It then transpired that the only other way that cycling was not allowed
would be if there was an old byelaw preventing it. Colin suggested
contacting the Head of Legal and Democratic Services to find out.
Well, I did just that and have a reply from Simon Pugh (and permission
to post it):
> I have been through our byelaws and can spot nothing to restrict
> cycling on footpaths that are not adjacent to carriageways.
>
> Of course, cycling on some footpaths is prohibited by way of traffic
> regulation order. I checked with the County Council whether this
> footpath was covered by an order and my understanding is that it is
> not.
>
> I am afraid I cannot shed light on the origin of the sign.
So, if the Head of Legal and Democratic Services says that he cannot
find any reason why you cannot cycle on this short stretch of footpaths,
I'm taking that as, "yes I can."
Also, note that his reply implies that there are *no* byelaws
restricting cycling on *any* footpaths (not adjacent to carriageways).
There may be TROs though (but not in this case).
The history of the plaque on this path is still a puzzle, though.
Now, I've been stopped by a bobby on this path before so what do I do
next time? Just telling him/her that they are plain wrong is likely to
provoke them. I'm wondering if a copy of my email from Simon Pugh will
act as proof, so may print it out and carry it in with me.
I hope this helps other users of this path.
Robin
Michael Hoffman
> So, if the Head of Legal and Democratic Services says that he cannot
> find any reason why you cannot cycle on this short stretch of footpaths,
> I'm taking that as, "yes I can."
>
> Also, note that his reply implies that there are *no* byelaws
> restricting cycling on *any* footpaths (not adjacent to carriageways).
> There may be TROs though (but not in this case).
>
> The history of the plaque on this path is still a puzzle, though.
>
> Now, I've been stopped by a bobby on this path before so what do I do
> next time? Just telling him/her that they are plain wrong is likely to
> provoke them. I'm wondering if a copy of my email from Simon Pugh will
> act as proof, so may print it out and carry it in with me.
The County Council has the authority to require the owner or occupier of
the land to remove signs that direct drivers. Perhaps it would be better
to ask them to do so? Seems easier and more productive than waiting for
an argument with a police officer.
--
Michael Hoffman
Martin
Reference to this thread added to picture of sign at:
http://www.camcycle.org.uk/map/location/11270/
for easy future reference.
Martin
Nick Maclaren
In article <f96ps7$hkn$1...@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk>,
Michael Hoffman <cam....@mh391.invalid> writes:
|> Robin wrote:
|>
|> > Now, I've been stopped by a bobby on this path before so what do I do
|> > next time? Just telling him/her that they are plain wrong is likely to
|> > provoke them. I'm wondering if a copy of my email from Simon Pugh will
|> > act as proof, so may print it out and carry it in with me.
|>
|> The County Council has the authority to require the owner or occupier of
|> the land to remove signs that direct drivers. Perhaps it would be better
|> to ask them to do so? Seems easier and more productive than waiting for
|> an argument with a police officer.
If, however, that section is not part of the highway, but is a permissive
path, the owner is entitled to impose such restrictions. It is quite
possible that it is the case, and it would now certainly be regarded as
a right of way on foot. But continual use by cyclists does not establish
a right of way (though use by horse riders would), so any such restriction
would remain valid.
However, if that IS the case, the plod would have no power to stop you,
unless you were in a group of at least 5 people (if I recall).
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Jon Warbrick
Michael Hoffman <cam....@mh391.invalid> wrote:
>The County Council has the authority to require the owner or occupier of
>the land to remove signs that direct drivers.
Which, I suppose, begs the question "Who is the owner of the land?".
Jon.
--
Jon Warbrick
Martin
On Mon, 6 Aug 2007, Nick Maclaren wrote:
> But continual use by cyclists does not establish a right of way (though
> use by horse riders would)
I'm not an expert in this sort of area, but I think this (evidence of past
use by cyclists not establishing a right of way) might have changed now as
a result of the NERC Act 2006 [1]. Jim Chisholm can probably provide more
info.
A posting I received a long while ago from the CTC said:
"evidence of (usually) 20 years cycle use can indeed now be cited as
evidence for a Restricted Byway (RB) claim (n.b. not a bridleway, as
stated in a previous posting). This came about as a result of CTC's
lobbying on the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act
2005."
[1] http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/ukpga_20060016_en.pdf
(Section 68 perhaps?)
Martin
Michael Hoffman
I'd let the County Council sort that out. They would know whether it is
a highway or not as well. And even if they don't know who owns the land,
it's easier to figure out who occupies it, and they can remove it
themselves if necessary.
--
Michael Hoffman
Nick Maclaren
In article <Pine.LNX.4.64.07...@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk>,
Martin <mv...@remove.cam.ac.uk> writes:
|>
|> > But continual use by cyclists does not establish a right of way (though
|> > use by horse riders would)
|>
|> I'm not an expert in this sort of area, but I think this (evidence of past
|> use by cyclists not establishing a right of way) might have changed now as
|> a result of the NERC Act 2006 [1]. Jim Chisholm can probably provide more
|> info.
|>
|> (Section 68 perhaps?)
Incredible! Yes, if that particular piece of gibberish means the same
in law as we (you, me and the CTC) think it does, they have FINALLY
relented. When was that change first proposed? In the 1920s, I assume,
but I can witness only that it has been requested regularly since the
1960s.
However, section 31(3) of the Highways Act 1980 says:
(3) Where the owner of any land over which any such way as aforesaid passes . . .
(a) has erected in such manner as to be visible to persons using the
way a notice inconsistent with the dedication of the way as a highway, and
(b) has maintained the notice after the 1st January 1934, or any later
date on which it was erected, the notice, in the absence of proof of a
contrary intention, is sufficient evidence to negative the intention to
dedicate the way as a highway.
So that notice would negate any dedication by continual use.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Al Grant
> Some time ago, Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
> > Cycling is allowed on footpaths (as opposed to footways alongside
> > carriageways) unless signed otherwise.
It's not illegal but it may still be a civil trespass if the landowner
does not permit it.
> > Of course, cycling on some footpaths is prohibited by way of traffic
> > regulation order.
A landowner doesn't need a TRO to forbid cycling on a public
footpath on their land. In particular the County don't need a TRO
to forbid you to cycle on footpaths owned by the County. And they
do forbid you to cycle on some footpaths within Cambridge.
> So, if the Head of Legal and Democratic Services says that he cannot
> find any reason why you cannot cycle on this short stretch of footpaths,
> I'm taking that as, "yes I can."
The City Council can advise you on the status of their own footpaths
(e.g. across the parks and commons), and they are likely to have a
list of permissive cycle paths. But it's not their job to advise you
in
general on whether the landowner of a footpath objects to you cycling
on the path, if that landowner is not the City Council. It's your
responsibility to establish that you have permission to do so.
> Now, I've been stopped by a bobby on this path before so what do I do
> next time? Just telling him/her that they are plain wrong is likely to
> provoke them. I'm wondering if a copy of my email from Simon Pugh will
> act as proof, so may print it out and carry it in with me.
It really depends who owns the path. If it is the City Council then
your
letter is sufficient proof. If not, then it's worthless.
Paul Rudin
> On 6 Aug, 10:23, Robin <a...@somewhere.com> wrote:
>> Some time ago, Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
>> > Cycling is allowed on footpaths (as opposed to footways alongside
>> > carriageways) unless signed otherwise.
>
> It's not illegal but it may still be a civil trespass if the landowner
> does not permit it.
>
>> > Of course, cycling on some footpaths is prohibited by way of traffic
>> > regulation order.
>
> A landowner doesn't need a TRO to forbid cycling on a public
> footpath on their land. In particular the County don't need a TRO
> to forbid you to cycle on footpaths owned by the County. And they
> do forbid you to cycle on some footpaths within Cambridge.
There are different notions of "forbid" in operation here. It's not a
criminal offence to cycle on a public footpath (whereas, for example,
it is a criminal offence to drive a motor vehicle on a public
footpath) and a landowner has no power to change that. OTOH a TRO can
create an offence.
Colin Rosenstiel
(Michael Hoffman) wrote:
It could do, but this is the highway so owned by the County Council these
days.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Colin Rosenstiel
wrote:
> Some time ago, Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
> > Cycling is allowed on footpaths (as opposed to footways alongside
> > carriageways) unless signed otherwise.
>
> I then asked:
> > How does this apply to the short bit of footpath between Free
> > School Lane and Benet Street? The only sign there is a old white
> > one, only facing Benet Street and I guess not official (it
> > doesn't look like a real highway sign).
>
> It then transpired that the only other way that cycling was not
> allowed would be if there was an old byelaw preventing it. Colin
> suggested contacting the Head of Legal and Democratic Services to
> find out.
>
> Well, I did just that and have a reply from Simon Pugh (and
> permission to post it):
>
> > I have been through our byelaws and can spot nothing to restrict
> > cycling on footpaths that are not adjacent to carriageways.
> >
> > Of course, cycling on some footpaths is prohibited by way of
> > traffic regulation order. I checked with the County Council whether
> > this footpath was covered by an order and my understanding is that it
> > is not.
> >
> > I am afraid I cannot shed light on the origin of the sign.
Not just him! It's very odd for there to be no record like this.
> So, if the Head of Legal and Democratic Services says that he
> cannot find any reason why you cannot cycle on this short stretch
> of footpaths, I'm taking that as, "yes I can."
>
> Also, note that his reply implies that there are *no* byelaws
> restricting cycling on *any* footpaths (not adjacent to
> carriageways). There may be TROs though (but not in this case).
>
> The history of the plaque on this path is still a puzzle, though.
It dates from the days when the City Council was also the Highway
Authority, for sure.
> Now, I've been stopped by a bobby on this path before so what do I
> do next time? Just telling him/her that they are plain wrong is
> likely to provoke them. I'm wondering if a copy of my email from
> Simon Pugh will act as proof, so may print it out and carry it in
> with me.
It might be advisable, yes.
> I hope this helps other users of this path.
Better still will be to get the sign removed. I'll see what can be done.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Nick Maclaren
In article <memo.2007080...@a01-09-5548.rosenstiel.co.uk>,
rosen...@cix.co.uk (Colin Rosenstiel) writes:
|> > >
|> > > I am afraid I cannot shed light on the origin of the sign.
|>
|> Not just him! It's very odd for there to be no record like this.
|>
|>
|> It dates from the days when the City Council was also the Highway
|> Authority, for sure.
|>
I suggest that you find out who owns the land and sign before doing
that. It is quite possible it is owned by Corpus Christi or the
University, who may also own the sign.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Colin Rosenstiel
Maclaren) wrote:
> However, section 31(3) of the Highways Act 1980 says:
>
> (3) Where the owner of any land over which any such way as
> aforesaid passes . . .
>
> (a) has erected in such manner as to be visible to persons
> using the
> way a notice inconsistent with the dedication of the way as a
> highway, and
>
> (b) has maintained the notice after the 1st January 1934, or
> any later date on which it was erected, the notice, in the absence of
> proof of a contrary intention, is sufficient evidence to negative the
> intention to dedicate the way as a highway.
>
> So that notice would negate any dedication by continual use.
Only if it was inconsistent with use as a highway. It is not of course
because it does not attempt to prevent other highway uses, e.g. by
pedestrians, by the passage of services in the subsoil, etc. Free School
Lane *is* a public highway.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Al Grant
> There are different notions of "forbid" in operation here.
It's the same notion of "forbid", what's different is the entity
doing the forbidding, and which courts you go through.
> It's not a
> criminal offence to cycle on a public footpath (whereas, for example,
> it is a criminal offence to drive a motor vehicle on a public
> footpath) and a landowner has no power to change that.
It's a criminal offence to drive a motor vehicle on a footpath
without permission of the landowner (but a civil trespass
to cycle or ride a horse on one without permission).
Motor vehicles are regularly driven on public footpaths
with permission of the landowner.
> OTOH a TRO can create an offence.
Correct. That's also the distinction between cycling on a
(roadside) pavement and cycling on an ordinary footpath.
However all this is about the practicalities of enforcement,
the fact that the state has taken over the job of enforcing
some kinds of trespass law for the public benefit (including
such details as the fact that it is a criminal offence for
pedestrians to trespass on railways). It really makes no
difference to whether you do or don't have a right of way.
Nick Maclaren
In article <memo.2007080...@a01-09-5548.rosenstiel.co.uk>,
rosen...@cix.co.uk (Colin Rosenstiel) writes:
|>
|>
|> Only if it was inconsistent with use as a highway. It is not of course
|> because it does not attempt to prevent other highway uses, e.g. by
|> pedestrians, by the passage of services in the subsoil, etc. Free School
|> Lane *is* a public highway.
Look, it isn't NECESSARY to act like a complete idiot to be a
politician, you know.
Firstly, the context is that of a highway over which cycling is
permitted, and it would negate that. Even 50+ years ago, continual
use by pedestrians never caused a route to become a public right of
way for all vehicles.
Secondly, services in the subsoil come under completely different
laws, both under Statute Law and Common Law.
Thirdly, repeating your claim that Free School Lane is a public
highway doesn't turn your claim into evidence - only in the works
of Lewis Carroll is that the case. A right of way is not a highway.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Tim Ward
news:f96pbb$gga$1...@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk...
>
> Now, I've been stopped by a bobby on this path before so what do I do next
> time? Just telling him/her that they are plain wrong is likely to provoke
> them. I'm wondering if a copy of my email from Simon Pugh will act as
> proof, so may print it out and carry it in with me.
Not "proof" until it's been to court and the other side's lawyers have had
their go at it ... but I don't think I've seen Simon be wrong yet.
--
Tim Ward - posting as an individual unless otherwise clear
Brett Ward Limited - www.brettward.co.uk
Cambridge Accommodation Notice Board - www.brettward.co.uk/canb
Cambridge City Councillor
Tim Ward
news:f973hf$7nj$2...@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk...
>>
>> Which, I suppose, begs the question "Who is the owner of the land?".
>
> I'd let the County Council sort that out. They would know whether it is a
> highway or not as well. And even if they don't know who owns the land,
> it's easier to figure out who occupies it, and they can remove it
> themselves if necessary.
The county council would only find out who owns the land if they think they
have a good reason to. Finding out who owns little bits of land in Cambridge
can be difficult and expensive and take many months. *Very* expensive if the
owner doesn't want to admit to it, or if two people both claim to own it.
Colin Rosenstiel
Maclaren) wrote:
What is your evidence that it is not a highway?
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Tim Ward
news:f977ch$fv0$1...@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk...
>
> I suggest that you find out who owns the land and sign before doing
> that. It is quite possible it is owned by Corpus Christi or the
> University, who may also own the sign.
Much easier and cheaper than finding out who owns the land for sure might be
to get anyone who has any chance of maybe owning it to sign a letter saying
"if we own this land we don't mind you taking the sign away", a technique
which has worked elsewhere in the city.
Roland Perry
Aug 2007, Tim Ward <t...@brettward.co.uk> remarked:
>The county council would only find out who owns the land if they think they
>have a good reason to.
In this case to find the criminal who has erected an illegal road sign!
Or may be it's the Council, so they must arrest themselves :)
--
Roland Perry
Tim Ward
news:18dGBS7p...@perry.co.uk...
> In message <5hp263F...@mid.individual.net>, at 17:56:35 on Mon, 6 Aug
> 2007, Tim Ward <t...@brettward.co.uk> remarked:
>>The county council would only find out who owns the land if they think
>>they
>>have a good reason to.
>
> In this case to find the criminal who has erected an illegal road sign!
Sorry to disappoint you but there's no way that'll even get onto the bottom
of the list, let alone reach the top this century.
Tony Raven
>
> Finding out who owns little bits of land in Cambridge
> can be difficult and expensive and take many months. *Very* expensive if the
> owner doesn't want to admit to it, or if two people both claim to own it.
>
The easiest way is to repeatedly trespass on the land and wait for
someone to object. You can then ask for proof they are the owner with
the right to ask you to stop. So carry on cycling on it until someone
tries to stop you.
Tony
Roland Perry
>>>The county council would only find out who owns the land if they
>>>think they have a good reason to.
>>
>> In this case to find the criminal who has erected an illegal road sign!
>
>Sorry to disappoint you but there's no way that'll even get onto the bottom
>of the list, let alone reach the top this century.
Does that mean that the rest of us can erect illegal road signs with
impunity? I imagine some residents might like fake "Weight limit - HGVs
banned" signs, for example.
--
Roland Perry
Nick Maclaren
In article <5hp2aqF...@mid.individual.net>,
"Tim Ward" <t...@brettward.co.uk> writes:
|> >
|> > I suggest that you find out who owns the land and sign before doing
|> > that. It is quite possible it is owned by Corpus Christi or the
|> > University, who may also own the sign.
|>
|> Much easier and cheaper than finding out who owns the land for sure might be
|> to get anyone who has any chance of maybe owning it to sign a letter saying
|> "if we own this land we don't mind you taking the sign away", a technique
|> which has worked elsewhere in the city.
Assuming that they are cooperative (as is almost certain in this case),
that is definitely the best approach!
If they are stroppy, and say "We believe that we own the land, we
object to you removing the sign, and we will produce evidence of
ownership only with a court order", it gets to be a problem. But
I can't see why that would happen here.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Nick Maclaren
In article <memo.2007080...@a01-09-5548.rosenstiel.co.uk>,
rosen...@cix.co.uk (Colin Rosenstiel) writes:
|>
|> > |> Free School Lane *is* a public highway.
|> >
|> > highway doesn't turn your claim into evidence - only in the works
|> > of Lewis Carroll is that the case. A right of way is not a highway.
|>
|> What is your evidence that it is not a highway?
No, no - you can't evade like that. I have merely said that it MIGHT
not be one (implying that I don't know). You have claimed that it
DEFINITELY is one. So where's YOUR evidence that section is a
highway and not a permissive use path?
I can trivially provide evidence that it is either a highway or is
not one. There. Done it.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Nick Maclaren
In article <lcKdnQdKtJw...@pipex.net>,
However, if it is a pavement or some sort of public path with a "no
cycling" restriction, you can then be prosecuted. And nobody has
to prove that it is one of those before doing so - but only as part
of the prosecution.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Colin Rosenstiel
Perry) wrote:
Only if you did it 50-100 years when it appears this sign was erected.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Colin Rosenstiel
Maclaren) wrote:
I'll accept the opinion of the City's Head of Legal and Democratic
Services in general and, over you, anytime.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Roland Perry
21:18:00 on Mon, 6 Aug 2007, Colin Rosenstiel <rosen...@cix.co.uk>
>> >>>The county council would only find out who owns the land if they
>> >>>think they have a good reason to.
>> >>
>> >> In this case to find the criminal who has erected an illegal
>> >> road sign!
>> >
>> >Sorry to disappoint you but there's no way that'll even get onto
>> >the bottom of the list, let alone reach the top this century.
>>
>> Does that mean that the rest of us can erect illegal road signs
>> with impunity? I imagine some residents might like fake "Weight
>> limit - HGVs banned" signs, for example.
>
>Only if you did it 50-100 years when it appears this sign was erected.
So there's a defence if the illegal sign is sufficiently old? Wossat,
seven years, or something else?
--
Roland Perry
Nick Maclaren
In article <memo.2007080...@a01-09-5548.rosenstiel.co.uk>,
rosen...@cix.co.uk (Colin Rosenstiel) writes:
|>
|> I'll accept the opinion of the City's Head of Legal and Democratic
|> Services in general and, over you, anytime.
On such a matter, so will I. What is it?
And, in case you quote the message from him posted by "Robin", he was
neither asked that question[*] nor answered it. Try reading it again,
and THIS time do so more carefully and don't assume your conclusion.
[*] To jog your short-term memory, "whether that section of Free
School Lane is a highway or a permissive use path".
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Colin Rosenstiel
Perry) wrote:
You're the one asserting that it is an *illegal* sign.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Tony Raven
Well either its a highway with a TRO or byelaw, which the Council will
be able to confirm or its a permissive right of way in which case you
can't be prosecuted, only have a civil case against you for which the
damages will be zero. You can't have it both ways
Tony
Al Grant
> Not "proof" until it's been to court and the other side's lawyers have had
> their go at it ... but I don't think I've seen Simon be wrong yet.
He is very likely correct that the byelaws say nothing about
this path, but if it is privately owned land, that is not sufficient
to prove that the general public have permission to cycle there.
The City Council and its councillors may want the general
public to be able to cycle on all footpaths on private land,
but spreading misinformation isn't the way to go about it.
Roland Perry
remarked:
>> So there's a defence if the illegal sign is sufficiently old?
>> Wossat, seven years, or something else?
>
>You're the one asserting that it is an *illegal* sign.
Actually it was Michael Hoffman who suggested that:
The County Council has the authority to require the owner or
occupier of the land to remove signs that direct drivers.
And that's because it's illegal to erect signs that direct drivers
unless you are the highway authority and the sign is approved etc etc.
--
Roland Perry
Al Grant
> Actually it was Michael Hoffman who suggested that:
>
> The County Council has the authority to require the owner or
> occupier of the land to remove signs that direct drivers.
>
> And that's because it's illegal to erect signs that direct drivers
> unless you are the highway authority and the sign is approved etc etc.
On a road, yes. There's nothing against putting up a
"no motor vehicles" or "no cyclists" or "no horses" sign
on a footpath and it doesn't matter what they look like.
If you are a horse rider you quickly learn the distinction
between footpaths and bridleways. Some people here
seem a bit confused, but it's not that difficult, is it?
Michael Hoffman
> On 7 Aug, 08:46, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> Actually it was Michael Hoffman who suggested that:
>>
>> The County Council has the authority to require the owner or
>> occupier of the land to remove signs that direct drivers.
>>
>> And that's because it's illegal to erect signs that direct drivers
>> unless you are the highway authority and the sign is approved etc etc.
>
> On a road, yes.
When I wrote that I was assuming that the space in question was a
highway. It's only afterwards that Nick suggested it might be a
permissive path.
--
Michael Hoffman
camjay
wrote:
> In message <memo.20070806140609.18...@a01-09-5548.rosenstiel.co.uk>, ColinRosenstiel wrote:
>
> > Better still will be to get the sign removed. I'll see what can be done.
>
> If it's valuable scrap metal then just let that be known and the sign will
> be gone before tomorrow...
> --
> Dave
> mail da v...@llondel.org (without the space)http://www.llondel.org
> So many gadgets, so little time
It's quite a nice old sign actually. Maybe instead of removing it they
could stick one of these on it!
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/9/143733824_477aff1e69_m.jpg
Nick Maclaren
In article <FbCdnctDSMs...@pipex.net>,
Tony Raven <tra...@gotadsl.co.uk> writes:
|> Nick Maclaren wrote:
|> > In article <lcKdnQdKtJw...@pipex.net>, Tony Raven
|> > <tra...@gotadsl.co.uk> writes: |> Tim Ward wrote: |> > |> > Finding
|> > out who owns little bits of land in Cambridge |> > can be difficult
|> > and expensive and take many months. *Very* expensive if the |> >
|> > owner doesn't want to admit to it, or if two people both claim to own
|> > it. |> |> The easiest way is to repeatedly trespass on the land and
|> > wait for |> someone to object. You can then ask for proof they are
|> > the owner with |> the right to ask you to stop. So carry on cycling
|> > on it until someone |> tries to stop you.
You do have problems with your newsreader's editor, don't you?
|> > However, if it is a pavement or some sort of public path with a "no
|> > cycling" restriction, you can then be prosecuted. And nobody has to
|> > prove that it is one of those before doing so - but only as part of
|> > the prosecution.
|>
|> Well either its a highway with a TRO or byelaw, which the Council will
|> be able to confirm or its a permissive right of way in which case you
|> can't be prosecuted, only have a civil case against you for which the
|> damages will be zero. You can't have it both ways
As usual, you haven't read what YOU posted. Go back and do so. You
may need to find an earlier posting to do so.
The Council may well be able to confirm whether it is a highway with a
TRO, but they or the police (whichever is relevant for prosecuting this
week) are under no obligation to do so before charging you for cycling
on such a thing.
Furthermore, while a landowner may be required to identify himself
before instructing you to stop, he is NOT required to provide proof of
that before suing you for trespass. Or, under certain circumstances
that are generally not relevant here, getting you arrested for
criminal trespass.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Nick Maclaren
In article <f99b1h$psg$2...@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk>,
Michael Hoffman <cam....@mh391.invalid> writes:
|> Al Grant wrote:
|> >
|> > On a road, yes.
|>
|> When I wrote that I was assuming that the space in question was a
|> highway. It's only afterwards that Nick suggested it might be a
|> permissive path.
Yes, indeed. While almost everyone (probably including Simon Pugh)
has assumed it for decades, is it true?
Looking at the layout, it is very plausible that Free School Lane
was a dead end in mediaeval times, and the building(s) that used to
be on that site were demolished later (perhaps when the new one next
to it was built, or possibly when its predecessor was. If the
landowner is the University, that could have been deliberate,
possibly so as to allow more convenient access to the New Museums
Site (when the old Botanic Garden was redeveloped) from the central
college area. That could be so even if the owner is Corpus Christi.
And then there are other issues. When the ownership of the land on
which highways ran was changed from mostly private to mostly public,
was the whole length of Free School Lane adopted?
To determine all this would need a fairly thorough search of old
documents, and I am sure that everyone concerned has more urgent
tasks. A modern, 'definitive' highways map might not be reliable,
as it could have been marked as a highway in error - such cases get
to the higher courts fairly often. And, as Tim Ward points out,
the storm in a teacup can be dealt with without resolving this
question, so it isn't even necessary to answer it!
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Tony Raven
>
> You do have problems with your newsreader's editor, don't you?
>
Only with your post and I believe Mozilla claims to be fully RFC
compliant so either its not or the post it is replying to is not. I
would not like to guess which other than to note yours was the only post
with which I've seen that problem.
>
> As usual, you haven't read what YOU posted. Go back and do so. You
> may need to find an earlier posting to do so.
>
> The Council may well be able to confirm whether it is a highway with a
> TRO, but they or the police (whichever is relevant for prosecuting this
> week) are under no obligation to do so before charging you for cycling
> on such a thing.
I believe (but can't lay my fingers on the relevant legislation at the
moment) that the TRO is not in effect unless the relevant signs, in this
case the official No Cycling signs, are in place. It would be different
if it were a byelaw but you are not expected to be psychic about TROs.
>
> Furthermore, while a landowner may be required to identify himself
> before instructing you to stop, he is NOT required to provide proof of
> that before suing you for trespass. Or, under certain circumstances
> that are generally not relevant here, getting you arrested for
> criminal trespass.
>
The landowner is entitled to ask you to leave his land as directed and
he can take you to court for the actual damage inflicted (which will be
zero in this case)
Tony
Colin Rosenstiel
cam...@gmail.com (camjay) wrote:
> It's quite a nice old sign actually. Maybe instead of removing it
> they could stick one of these on it!
>
> http://farm1.static.flickr.com/9/143733824_477aff1e69_m.jpg
ROFL!
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Roland Perry
01:23:09 on Tue, 7 Aug 2007, Al Grant <alg...@myrealbox.com> remarked:
>On 7 Aug, 08:46, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> Actually it was Michael Hoffman who suggested that:
>>
>> The County Council has the authority to require the owner or
>> occupier of the land to remove signs that direct drivers.
>>
>> And that's because it's illegal to erect signs that direct drivers
>> unless you are the highway authority and the sign is approved etc etc.
>
>On a road, yes. There's nothing against putting up a
>"no motor vehicles" or "no cyclists" or "no horses" sign
>on a footpath and it doesn't matter what they look like.
I think the proposition here is that the rule also applies to whatever
legal entity that stretch of paving stones is (ie that it's a highway,
albeit one you cant get a motorised vehicle along).
>If you are a horse rider you quickly learn the distinction
>between footpaths and bridleways. Some people here
>seem a bit confused, but it's not that difficult, is it?
So what do you think that stretch is?
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Aug 2007, Nick Maclaren <nm...@cus.cam.ac.uk> remarked:
>The Council may well be able to confirm whether it is a highway with a
>TRO, but they or the police (whichever is relevant for prosecuting this
>week) are under no obligation to do so before charging you for cycling
>on such a thing.
When you say "charging you for cycling", in this case would such a
charge be thrown out of court because there's no basis under which
cycling is banned? So a case of "wasting the courts time". But I agree
that being so charged would be a bit inconvenient for the cyclist.
--
Roland Perry
Nick Maclaren
In article <txSQyFKa...@perry.co.uk>,
Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> writes:
|>
|> >The Council may well be able to confirm whether it is a highway with a
|> >TRO, but they or the police (whichever is relevant for prosecuting this
|> >week) are under no obligation to do so before charging you for cycling
|> >on such a thing.
|>
|> When you say "charging you for cycling", in this case would such a
|> charge be thrown out of court because there's no basis under which
|> cycling is banned? So a case of "wasting the courts time". But I agree
|> that being so charged would be a bit inconvenient for the cyclist.
No. Given the attitude of the courts and magistrates, a mere sworn
statement that it is a highway or existence on ANY official map would
be enough. YOU would then have to provide comparable evidence that the
location was not a highway.
But that isn't the real point, which is that they don't EVEN have to
tell you what evidence they have that it is a highway. They can tell
you not to cycle, and you have no comeback if you suffer loss by doing
what they say - even if it is later proved that they knew that they
had no right to tell you that. But, if you ignore them, you can get
booked or even arrested, and have very little comeback even if they
had no right to do so.
An increasing number of laws make it an offence to disobey police
orders if the police believe that they they have the right to issue
them. Note, not just if they actually HAVE such a right, but if they
believe it. You can thus be convicted for merely insisting on your
legal rights.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Nick Maclaren
In article <4c2dnS7sh7GKoSXb...@pipex.net>,
Tony Raven <tra...@gotadsl.co.uk> writes:
|> >
|> > You do have problems with your newsreader's editor, don't you?
|>
|> Only with your post and I believe Mozilla claims to be fully RFC
|> compliant so either its not or the post it is replying to is not. I
|> would not like to guess which other than to note yours was the only post
|> with which I've seen that problem.
It can't POSSIBLY be your fault, can it?
It's a classic mistake when tyros use fancy modern editors and don't
realise that many of the 'clever' ones are not WYSIWYG - such as,
when you request justification, it may happen later than you assume.
That's utterly stupid design, but it's extremely common nowadays.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Martin
Well, I personally use Pine (which is not a 'clever' WYSIWYG one by any
stretch of the imagination) and the same problem occurs when I habitually
justify quoted posts. Perhaps I should not do so. Why the use of |> rather
than > ?
Martin
Nick Maclaren
In article <Pine.LNX.4.64.07...@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk>,
Martin <mv...@remove.cam.ac.uk> writes:
|>
|> Well, I personally use Pine (which is not a 'clever' WYSIWYG one by any
|> stretch of the imagination) and the same problem occurs when I habitually
|> justify quoted posts. Perhaps I should not do so. Why the use of |> rather
|> than > ?
1) Yes, you shouldn't. You can't justify arbitrary text, and
everything beyond the headers is arbitrary text, conventionally
formatted to be human readable as well as machine readable.
2) Pine IS an example of an editor that looks WYSIWYG but isn't. It
isn't all that clever, but is still too clever by half (relative to
the abilities of its authors).
3) One of the two newsreaders I use uses '|> '. I correspond with
people who use '>', '> ', ' ', ':' and many other conventions.
It's not a problem.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Robin Stevens
> Well, I personally use Pine (which is not a 'clever' WYSIWYG one by any
> stretch of the imagination) and the same problem occurs when I habitually
> justify quoted posts. Perhaps I should not do so. Why the use of |> rather
> than > ?
Indeed, I have the same problem with vim. No doubt it could be trained
to work properly if I were sufficiently bothered; alternatively Nick
could use a saner quote character, but I fear porcine aviation is more
likely.
--
Robin Stevens <re...@cynic.org.uk>
---- http://www.cynic.org.uk/ ----
Al Grant
> I think the proposition here is that the rule also applies to whatever
> legal entity that stretch of paving stones is (ie that it's a highway,
> albeit one you cant get a motorised vehicle along).
I don't believe you. Public footpaths are highways, but it is not
illegal to put up a notice saying "no cycling" or "no horses" or
"no motor vehicles". The landowner is simply communicating
their intentions re permissive use, and they can do that any
way they want, including verbally or by putting up physical
obstructions. If you are told you are not welcome on someone's
land on which you have no statutory right of way, then you are
'free' to commit civil trespass and it is quite difficult for the
landowner to do much about it in the short term, but don't
pretend you are there as of right.
> >If you are a horse rider you quickly learn the distinction
> >between footpaths and bridleways. Some people here
> >seem a bit confused, but it's not that difficult, is it?
>
> So what do you think that stretch is?
It is almost certainly a public footpath simply through long
use if no other reason. It may be a public road (being an
extension of Free School Lane) but if that were the case there
would be a TRO stopping it up to motor vehicles and we have
been told (haven't we?) that there is no TRO applying here.
It may be an unrestricted bridleway but that seems unlikely
since if it was then that is the obvious answer to the original
question and Simon Pugh would have been silly not to
mention it. (AFAIK there are no bridleways in urban
Cambridge, though there's one alongside the M11 that is
just within the city boundary.)
I'd bet £20 that it is a public footpath whose owner does not
permit cycling. Hence the notice. Occam's razor and all that.
Mike Clark
nm...@cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren) wrote:
A combination of the editor Zap in Email mode and MessengerPro running
under RiscOS 6.06 seems to cope OK with Nick's postings and a variaty of
quoting characters.
Mike
--
o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark
<\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing,
"> || _`\<,_ |__\ \> | immunology lecturer, antibody engineer and
` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user"
Tony Raven
> |>
> |> Only with your post and I believe Mozilla claims to be fully RFC
> |> compliant so either its not or the post it is replying to is not. I
> |> would not like to guess which other than to note yours was the only post
> |> with which I've seen that problem.
>
> It can't POSSIBLY be your fault, can it?
What were you saying about reading what people have written?
>
> It's a classic mistake when tyros use fancy modern editors and don't
> realise that many of the 'clever' ones are not WYSIWYG - such as,
> when you request justification, it may happen later than you assume.
> That's utterly stupid design, but it's extremely common nowadays.
>
My apologies; I shall revert to sending you quill scribed parchments in
Old English and to hell with all this fancy modern paraphernalia. I'll
get my hair shirt....
Tony
Al Grant
> When I wrote that I was assuming that the space in question was a
> highway. It's only afterwards that Nick suggested it might be a
> permissive path.
'Highway' just means public right of way, more or less.
A public footpath is a highway. It is possible for the same
path to be a public footpath and a permissive cycle path,
and many are precisely that, including most of the footpaths
across the parks in Cambridge, and some but not all of
the footpaths across the bridges of the Cam.
Tony Raven
>
> A combination of the editor Zap in Email mode and MessengerPro running
> under RiscOS 6.06 seems to cope OK with Nick's postings and a variaty of
> quoting characters.
>
> Mike
Have you tried it on message ID <f97tc0$c3$1...@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk> which
is the only one of Nick's postings that seems to have created a quoting
problem in my newsreader?
Tony
Roland Perry
>|> >The Council may well be able to confirm whether it is a highway with a
>|> >TRO, but they or the police (whichever is relevant for prosecuting this
>|> >week) are under no obligation to do so before charging you for cycling
>|> >on such a thing.
>|>
>|> When you say "charging you for cycling", in this case would such a
>|> charge be thrown out of court because there's no basis under which
>|> cycling is banned? So a case of "wasting the courts time". But I agree
>|> that being so charged would be a bit inconvenient for the cyclist.
>
>No. Given the attitude of the courts and magistrates, a mere sworn
>statement that it is a highway or existence on ANY official map would
>be enough.
You missed the point. They'd also have to swear there was a TRO, and we
seem to have some advice from the County's legal eagle that there isn't
one.
> YOU would then have to provide comparable evidence that the
>location was not a highway.
Not subject to a TRO, and then charge the swearer above with perjury.
--
Roland Perry
Nick Maclaren
In article <1GfmvaRt...@perry.co.uk>,
Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> writes:
|>
|> You missed the point. They'd also have to swear there was a TRO, and we
|> seem to have some advice from the County's legal eagle that there isn't
|> one.
Ah. Yes, I had. Sorry. I thought that you were talking generically.
Given THAT advice, I agree.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Mike Clark
Tony Raven <tra...@gotadsl.co.uk> wrote:
Just did and it quotes and reformats fine.
Tony Raven
>
> Just did and it quotes and reformats fine.
>
Looks like I've got a rogue extension - it quotes and reformats fine
with the AutoRewrap extension disabled but not when it is enabled.
Ironic as its purpose is to deal with broken wrapping from some news
clients. Not sure why it is that that one post is throwing it a wobbly
though. Have disabled it for the time being anyway.
http://autorewrap.mozdev.org/
Tony
Colin Rosenstiel
Perry) wrote:
> You missed the point. They'd also have to swear there was a TRO,
> and we seem to have some advice from the County's legal eagle that
> there isn't one.
The City's legal eagle. He's on holiday now, BTW.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Jonathan Amery
Al Grant <alg...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>It is almost certainly a public footpath simply through long
>use if no other reason. It may be a public road (being an
>extension of Free School Lane) but if that were the case there
>would be a TRO stopping it up to motor vehicles and we have
>been told (haven't we?) that there is no TRO applying here.
Might there be a pre-TRO byelaw relating to the area?
--
Jonathan Amery. I am a new creation, no more in condemnation,
##### here in the grace of God I stand.
#######__o My heart is overflowing, my love just keeps on growing
#######'/ here in the grace of God I stand.
Nick Maclaren
In article <ShB*TX...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,
Jonathan Amery <jda...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
|> In article <1186486800.0...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
|> Al Grant <alg...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
|> >It is almost certainly a public footpath simply through long
|> >use if no other reason. It may be a public road (being an
|> >extension of Free School Lane) but if that were the case there
|> >would be a TRO stopping it up to motor vehicles and we have
|> >been told (haven't we?) that there is no TRO applying here.
|>
|> Might there be a pre-TRO byelaw relating to the area?
Indeed there might be, and that might be the case even if it is
merely a right of way and not a public footpath. The long use
would establish the former but not change its ownership, and
the modern bureaucratic rules restricting byelaws didn't apply
centuries ago.
It's amusing to speculate but, in the absence of documents, we are
all guessing wildly at what its actual status is. The simple fact
is that the normal assumption that it is an unrestricted public
footpath is merely the most likely of many plausible possibilities.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Roland Perry
9 Aug 2007, Jonathan Amery <jda...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
>Might there be a pre-TRO byelaw relating to the area?
Didn't the legal eagle say there were none?
--
Roland Perry
Nick Maclaren
In article <LBxZOlYW...@perry.co.uk>,
No. He was looking for byelaws relating to cycling on footpaths in
general. In any case, it isn't impossible that it is so ancient
that he doesn't have a record - or, even, if the land is owned by
the University, dates from the days when Proctors had powers over
townspeople.
Now, if there were an ancient University rule equivalent to a byelaw
forbidding any carriage or horse on that path, what would its legal
status be? It would almost certainly be a question of whether the
City adopted it into its byelaws by implication. Time for a moot :-)
Take a look at Laundress Lane for a sign dated 1857 that says that.
And I don't know the status of that lane, either.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Jonathan Amery
Nick Maclaren <nm...@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>It's amusing to speculate but, in the absence of documents, we are
>all guessing wildly at what its actual status is. The simple fact
>is that the normal assumption that it is an unrestricted public
>footpath is merely the most likely of many plausible possibilities.
>
is not permited.
--
Jonathan Amery. Through many dangers, toils and snares,
##### I have already come;
#######__o 'Tis grace hath brought me safe thus far,
#######'/ And grace will lead me home. - John Newton
Nick Maclaren
In article <Tcb*Fk...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, Jonathan Amery <jda...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
|> In article <f9esrt$mnd$1...@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk>,
|> Nick Maclaren <nm...@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
|> >
|> >It's amusing to speculate but, in the absence of documents, we are
|> >all guessing wildly at what its actual status is. The simple fact
|> >is that the normal assumption that it is an unrestricted public
|> >footpath is merely the most likely of many plausible possibilities.
|> >
|> Not given the existance of a sign or notice indicating that cycling
|> is not permited.
How trusting you are! Why should the sign be any more valid than
"Trespassers will be prosecuted"?
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Roland Perry
>>all guessing wildly at what its actual status is. The simple fact
>>is that the normal assumption that it is an unrestricted public
>>footpath is merely the most likely of many plausible possibilities.
>>
> Not given the existance of a sign or notice indicating that cycling
>is not permited.
Not given that the sign might always have been a bluff (legally
speaking).
--
Roland Perry
Jonathan Amery
Nick Maclaren <nm...@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>In article <Tcb*Fk...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, Jonathan Amery <jda...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
>|> In article <f9esrt$mnd$1...@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk>,
>|> Nick Maclaren <nm...@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>|> >
>|> >It's amusing to speculate but, in the absence of documents, we are
>|> >all guessing wildly at what its actual status is. The simple fact
>|> >is that the normal assumption that it is an unrestricted public
>|> >footpath is merely the most likely of many plausible possibilities.
>|> >
>|> Not given the existance of a sign or notice indicating that cycling
>|> is not permited.
>
>How trusting you are! Why should the sign be any more valid than
>"Trespassers will be prosecuted"?
>
an unrestricted public footpath was no longer the most likely possibility.
--
Jonathan Amery. Let us try what Love will do; for if men did once see
##### we love them, we should soon find they would not harm
#######__o us. Force may subdue, but Love gains: and he that
#######'/ forgives first, wins the laurel. - William Penn, 1693
Nick Maclaren
In article <Hvn*2i...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,
Jonathan Amery <jda...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
|>
|> >How trusting you are! Why should the sign be any more valid than
|> >"Trespassers will be prosecuted"?
|> >
|> I didn't say the sign was true, just that it meant that that it was
|> an unrestricted public footpath was no longer the most likely possibility.
I stand by my comment :-) You have to place a lot more trust in it
than I do to believe that it changes the probabilities that much!
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.