Rights of way along Bottisham Lode
John Taylor
I used to frequently cycle along Bottisham Lode between Quy and
Waterbeach.
Here: http://www.streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?X=551137&Y=265569&A=Y&Z=115
After a gap of a few months, I recently went that way again and now find
that there are signs saying: "No cycles except by written consent"
Can anyone tell me what the rules are here ?
1) It is a public right of way (footpath) on all the maps that I have
seen.
2) There are no details on the signs to say where to get 'written
consent', or who has posted the signs.
Do these signs have legal authority ?
I assume that it actually means 'no cycling', and I am at least allowed
to push my bike.
Regards
JohnT
Calvin Sambrook
news:zWMZl.8233$8C5....@newsfe11.ams2...
According to OS that's a footpath (you can just see it peaking through
underneath the rather strange boundary line) so no, you have no right to
ride a bicycle there. My understanding, which may be faulty, is that you
are not technically permitted to push a bike either however you are
permitted to carry it.
Once you cross the river the path going south (only) is bridleway where you
do have a right to ride your bike but the landowner is under no obligation
to make it easy for you (and therefore is free to make it difficult).
I too have seen these notices on the land further north, I guess the
landowner has either had some problem or has got jobsworth legal advice or
is just being arsey.
Brian L Johnson
> I used to frequently cycle along Bottisham Lode between Quy and
> Waterbeach.
> Here: http://www.streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?X=551137&Y=265569&A=Y&Z=115
>
> After a gap of a few months, I recently went that way again and now find
> that there are signs saying: "No cycles except by written consent"
>
>
> Can anyone tell me what the rules are here ?
>
> 1) It is a public right of way (footpath) on all the maps that I have
> seen.
I think the 'foot' part of 'footpath' may be the point. If it were a
bridleway, it would allow horses and bikes.
> 2) There are no details on the signs to say where to get 'written
> consent', or who has posted the signs.
Write your own phone number on and see how many other people phone you up.
Then band together and form an association of like-minded... Okay, maybe
not. :)
> Do these signs have legal authority ?
>
>
> I assume that it actually means 'no cycling', and I am at least allowed
> to push my bike.
Or carry your horse. :)
--
-blj-
Paul Rudin
Presumably the land owner posted the signs. They have legal authority in
the sense that he's telling you he doesn't want you to cycle on his
land.
You have no legally enforceble right to cycle on a public footpath. If
you do so (without permission) it's a trepass against the land owner
(but not a criminal offence - contrast with a motor vehicle). You
probably don't have the right to push a bike along a public footpath
either, but you probably do have a right to carry it.
Incidentally - does anyone know who the land owner is? It's slightly odd
to mention "written consent" - normally people just say "no bikes" or
some such. (The British Waterways Board have an odd system of free,
downloadable permits that you need to cycle on their towpaths.)
(Concidentally I cycled past there this weekend - a meandering
off-road/on-road route out of town on the tow-path, up to Wicken Fen and
then back through Reach and Bottisham.)
Mike Clark
In message <87r5xk4...@rudin.co.uk>
Paul Rudin <paul....@rudin.co.uk> wrote:
My understanding is that there are negotiations underway involving
Sustrans and also the National Trust to secure routes for commuting and
recreation, including cycling, that connect North Cambridge with Wicken
Fen and also Anglesey Abbey (via White Fen). To fully connect these
locations also requires new bridges across some of the Lodes to be
constructed and that was part of the successful Connect2 bid for lottery
money in this region.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/lnmqh5
As usual in these situations some landowners have been very co-operative
and others more resistent. I think the Bottisham Lode area is one where
rights have not yet been secured.
Mike
--
o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark
<\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing,
"> || _`\<,_ |__\ \> | caving, antibody engineer and
` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user"
John Taylor
>
> My understanding is that there are negotiations underway involving
> Sustrans and also the National Trust to secure routes for commuting and
> recreation, including cycling, that connect North Cambridge with Wicken
> Fen and also Anglesey Abbey (via White Fen). To fully connect these
> locations also requires new bridges across some of the Lodes to be
> constructed and that was part of the successful Connect2 bid for lottery
> money in this region.
>
> http://preview.tinyurl.com/lnmqh5
>
Ah!
That make sense.
It seems that the Cambridge/Wicken project goes along that path!
I guess the landowner is trying to make a point, or improve his
negotiating position.
Thanks
JohnT
Roland Perry
16:06:18 on Tue, 16 Jun 2009, Mike Clark <mrc...@cam.ac.uk> remarked:
>To fully connect these locations also requires new bridges across some
>of the Lodes to be constructed and that was part of the successful
>Connect2 bid for lottery money in this region.
Lodes-a-money :)
>http://preview.tinyurl.com/lnmqh5
>
>As usual in these situations some landowners have been very co-operative
>and others more resistent. I think the Bottisham Lode area is one where
>rights have not yet been secured.
So this latest move may be a bargaining tool? (Their "share" of the
�600k??)
--
Roland Perry
Philip Shore
> [cross posted to cam.transport]
>
> In message <87r5xk4...@rudin.co.uk>
> Paul Rudin <paul....@rudin.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> John Taylor <jo...@example.com> writes:
>>
>>> I used to frequently cycle along Bottisham Lode between Quy and
>>> Waterbeach.
>>> Here: http://www.streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?X=551137&Y=265569&A=Y&Z=115
>>>
>>> After a gap of a few months, I recently went that way again and now find
>>> that there are signs saying: "No cycles except by written consent"
>>>
>>>
>>> Can anyone tell me what the rules are here ?
>>>
>>> 1) It is a public right of way (footpath) on all the maps that I have
>>> seen.
>>> 2) There are no details on the signs to say where to get 'written
>>> consent', or who has posted the signs.
>>>
>>> Do these signs have legal authority ?
>>>
>>>
>>> I assume that it actually means 'no cycling', and I am at least allowed
>>> to push my bike.
>>>
I was researching rights of way having entered a mountain bike
orienteering event where you get disqualified if you break the rules.
I came across this thread:
http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=12627544
The ex rights-of-way officer says you cannot legally push a cycle along
a footpath but who is going to prosecute you for that ?
Personally, I would ignore the sign, walk your bike past the house and
jump on when out of sight.
If you are worried, your other option is to go on the other (SW) side of
the river, over the style to Northfields Farm. From there it is tarmac
to Clayhithe (the entrance to the sailing club).
Whatever you do, be reasonable a say a cheery hello to everybody you see
and everybody gets along nicely. My other tactic is to say
"ding-a-ling" if I approach people from behind - it hasn't failed to get
a smile yet. :-)
Phil.
The Natural Philosopher
> I used to frequently cycle along Bottisham Lode between Quy and
> Waterbeach.
> Here: http://www.streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?X=551137&Y=265569&A=Y&Z=115
>
> After a gap of a few months, I recently went that way again and now find
> that there are signs saying: "No cycles except by written consent"
>
>
> Can anyone tell me what the rules are here ?
>
> 1) It is a public right of way (footpath) on all the maps that I have
> seen.
> 2) There are no details on the signs to say where to get 'written
> consent', or who has posted the signs.
>
> Do these signs have legal authority ?
>
Paul Rudin
> The ex rights-of-way officer says you cannot legally push a cycle
> along a footpath but who is going to prosecute you for that ?
It's not a criminal offence in any case...
Ben C
IANAL etc. but if they are going to prosecute they basically have to sue
you for some loss or damage you are supposed to have caused them.
They might argue for example that you owe them a billionth of a penny
towards resurfacing for the extra wear and tear caused to the path by
your tyres.
Brian Watson
"Philip Shore" <pm...@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:h18gp8$cqo$1...@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk...
> I was researching rights of way having entered a mountain bike
> orienteering event where you get disqualified if you break the rules.
>
> I came across this thread:
> http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=12627544
>
> The ex rights-of-way officer says you cannot legally push a cycle along a
> footpath but who is going to prosecute you for that ?
>
>
> Personally, I would ignore the sign, walk your bike past the house and
> jump on when out of sight.
I suppose the fact that you may well be rutting the footpath for walkers
doesn't concern you?
Just as you might object to cars rutting cycleways?
--
Brian
"Fight like the Devil, die like a gentleman."
Brian Watson
"Phil W Lee" <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote in message
news:egqg351d2stiqt7p2...@4ax.com...
> I wonder what the situation is with regard to wheelchairs?
Many footpaths, particularly rural ones, aren't suitable for wheelchairs.
It's unfortunate, but not everywhere is suitable for everyone.
Paul Rudin
> I suppose the fact that you may well be rutting the footpath for walkers
> doesn't concern you?
It can be an issue - although sometimes you churn things up more on foot
than on a bike. It depends on the kind of surface and how wet it is.
(In passing - horses tend to be far worse than either pedestrians or
bikes as far as churning up paths goes.)
> Just as you might object to cars rutting cycleways?
It's of problem of a different order. Bike+rider typically weighs no
more than 100kg. Most cars are over 1000kg. The big four-wheel drive
things that people like to take off road are typically a lot heavier.
I rode down the Roman Road the a few days ago - as soon as you get onto
the section where you still get cars it's a heavily rutted quagmire. The
first few miles going out of town are fine (which is horses, bikes and
pedestrians). It may be that there are other factors, but I strongly
suspect that the cars is the main one. I saw a Range Rover making
tortuous progress on this section - wheels spinning sending mud flying
everywhere and digging a deep rut in the process. My passage on the bike
was essentially "zero impact" in comparison.
Ben C
> "Brian Watson" <Br...@imagebus.co.uk> writes:
>
>
>> I suppose the fact that you may well be rutting the footpath for walkers
>> doesn't concern you?
>
> It can be an issue - although sometimes you churn things up more on foot
> than on a bike. It depends on the kind of surface and how wet it is.
>
> (In passing - horses tend to be far worse than either pedestrians or
> bikes as far as churning up paths goes.)
>
>> Just as you might object to cars rutting cycleways?
>
> It's of problem of a different order. Bike+rider typically weighs no
> more than 100kg. Most cars are over 1000kg. The big four-wheel drive
> things that people like to take off road are typically a lot heavier.
But they have much lower pressure tyres, so in some ways they will do
less damage. But as you say, it's all the leadfoots spinning their
wheels that dig those deep ruts.
> I rode down the Roman Road the a few days ago - as soon as you get onto
> the section where you still get cars it's a heavily rutted quagmire. The
> first few miles going out of town are fine (which is horses, bikes and
> pedestrians).
And enormous numbers of rabbits.
> It may be that there are other factors, but I strongly suspect that
> the cars is the main one.
Yes, it is cars that make those big ruts. Tractors are also annoying
because they create rumble strips everywhere they go (although I suppose
the farmer could make a case that he should be allowed to drive around
on his own land in order to plough his fields).
Al Grant
> As usual in these situations some landowners have been very co-operative
> and others more resistent.
As usual in these situations, upgrading rights of way
affects some landowners more than others, especially
when horses or other livestock are grazed on land.
Landowners might also consider they are more
liable for damages (either to cyclists, or to pedestrian
users of the RoW injured by cyclists) unless they have
such a prohibition, or they may have had complaints
from pedestrians (or horse riders there by permission)
about nuisance from cyclists.
I know (having talked to them) that this is the sort of
reason the county council sometimes put up signs
forbidding cyclists on public footpaths on their own
land (or bridges).
In my experience of cycling, running and riding events
many landowners are happy to permit access if they
have a rough idea of when it's going to happen.
I heard a rumour that the Sustrans project was going to
result in the removal of some rights of way. I.e. far from
upgrading the current public footpaths to public bridleways
or public cycle paths, all access would become permissive.
The quid pro quo for permissive cycle access, was that
pedestrian access would also become permissive.
I asked someone (I think the Fen Rivers Way people)
whether this was true, they'd get back to me and never did.
Philip Shore
> "Philip Shore" <pm...@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:h18gp8$cqo$1...@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk...
>
>> Personally, I would ignore the sign, walk your bike past the house and
>> jump on when out of sight.
>
> I suppose the fact that you may well be rutting the footpath for walkers
> doesn't concern you?
I think you are overplaying the amount of damage a bicycle wheel can do
in our flat fens. It is probably of a similar amount to a foot,
possibly less.
>
> Just as you might object to cars rutting cycleways?
>
I am quite relaxed on this one. We are all sharing the countryside and
so little of it is open to off road vehicles (2% I believe) that I don't
mind even if it is a little inconvenient at times.
I think we would be in a far worse place if we banned them - the NIMBY
attitude where nobody can do anything. If we take it to the extreme, the
national parks would have banned walkers from the popular footpaths due
the erosion they do.
Phil.
Paul Rudin
>
> I am quite relaxed on this one. We are all sharing the countryside and
> so little of it is open to off road vehicles (2% I believe) that I
> don't mind even if it is a little inconvenient at times.
>
> I think we would be in a far worse place if we banned them - the NIMBY
> attitude where nobody can do anything....
The growth in recreational off-road vehicles in the last 10-20 years has
made some byways that were previously rather nice for walkers, cyclists
and horse riders into a complete mess - and there's the issue of the
noise from squadrons of four wheel drive vehicles.
Fortunately some councils have recognized this and made traffic orders
prohibiting motor vehicles in spots where it's particularly problematic,
but compliance is often not great unless physical barriers have been
erected.
I'm all in favour in live and let live when it doesn't affect anyone
else, the trouble is that the motor vehicles in these places are ruining
everyone else's enjoyment.
Cwatters
or perhaps someone walking was hit by a bike?
John Taylor
> "John Taylor" <jo...@example.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>>
>> Ah!
>> That make sense.
>> It seems that the Cambridge/Wicken project goes along that path!
>>
>> I guess the landowner is trying to make a point, or improve his
>> negotiating position.
>>
>> Thanks
>> JohnT
>
> or perhaps someone walking was hit by a bike?
Thats not very likely.
That part of the path is basically just a rough grassy field, with no
obvious path.
They would have to make quite an effort to even come close.
JohnT
Whatever
"The Natural Philosopher" <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:h18mj9$l5r$3...@news.albasani.net...
> John Taylor wrote:
>> I used to frequently cycle along Bottisham Lode between Quy and
>> Waterbeach.
>> Here: http://www.streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?X=551137&Y=265569&A=Y&Z=115
>>
>> After a gap of a few months, I recently went that way again and now find
>> that there are signs saying: "No cycles except by written consent"
>>
>>
>> Can anyone tell me what the rules are here ?
>>
>> 1) It is a public right of way (footpath) on all the maps that I have
>> seen.
>> 2) There are no details on the signs to say where to get 'written
>> consent', or who has posted the signs.
>>
>> Do these signs have legal authority ?
>>
> Probably. IIRC a footpath is not for cycling on by default.
oh dear, now you've gone and upset them ;)
Roland Perry
Jun 2009, John Taylor <jo...@example.com> remarked:
>> or perhaps someone walking was hit by a bike?
>
>Thats not very likely.
>That part of the path is basically just a rough grassy field, with no
>obvious path.
>They would have to make quite an effort to even come close.
I'm afraid a lot of cyclists do come too close to pedestrians, even when
there's plenty of room - the effort seems to be to keep away :(
--
Roland Perry
RobertL
> "John Taylor" <j...@example.com> wrote in message
perhaps he's had trouble for a particular group of cyclists. maybe if
you write and ask him for permission, explaining who you are and why
you like to ride there, he will write back and give permission.
Robert
Patrick Gosling
I'm not a lawyer. This may all be wrong ...
If it's a public footpath, the only rights granted to you are to pass
and re-pass _on foot_ along it.
It needs to be a public bridleway (or public right-of-way or highway)
to give you the right to cycle on it.
You need to make a distinction between criminal and civil matters.
Trespass (which is what you're doing if you go on land without either
permission or a legal right to do so; so that very clearly includes
cycling on a public footpath; and is made all the more clear by the
sign) is almost always a civil rather than a criminal matter.
The cases where trespass can be criminal are mostly in CJPO(1994) and
appear to be designed to be used against ravers, hunt sabateurs, squatters,
and some traveller communities. You'd have to work quite hard to fall
foul of them, I think, since they specify numerous other conditions on
top of "being on land without permission".
It's very clear, because of the sign, and the fact that you don't have
any legal right to cycle there without the permission of the landowner,
that you _will_ be trespassing if you do cycle on that section.
My understanding is that trespass to land is _not_ something that requires
damage to be actionable. However, I _think_ that the only thing that
the property owner can sue for is either compensation or a court order.
The best information I have, therefore, is that if the landowner chose
to sue you, and there was no damage provable, they could be awarded an
injunction ordering you not to do it again. If you then repeated the
action, you _would_ have committed a criminal offence.
-patrick.
Patrick Gosling
Philip Shore <pm...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>I think we would be in a far worse place if we banned them - the NIMBY
>attitude where nobody can do anything. If we take it to the extreme, the
>national parks would have banned walkers from the popular footpaths due
>the erosion they do.
Given the effect in some parts of the Lake District, where you can see
that the "ooh, I don't want to tread in the muddy bit" effect has widened
some paths to the size of A-roads in places, that might not be an entirely
unreasonable thing to do, at least for a while.
Fortunately, there's another solution - I was quite impressed by the
Cleveland Way's use of rough slabs to mark the path, and by the fact
that there was _no_ erosion to the side at all in the (lengthy) sections
where this had been done. A good demonstration of the kind of thing I'm
talking about can be seen here:
<http://www.nationaltrail.co.uk/ClevelandWay/gallery_image.asp?PageId=21&ImageId=8>
It's a difficult balance to get right, though.
-patrick.
Brian Watson
"Paul Rudin" <paul....@rudin.co.uk> wrote in message
news:87bponc...@rudin.co.uk...
> "Brian Watson" <Br...@imagebus.co.uk> writes:
>
>
>> I suppose the fact that you may well be rutting the footpath for walkers
>> doesn't concern you?
>
> It can be an issue - although sometimes you churn things up more on foot
> than on a bike. It depends on the kind of surface and how wet it is.
>
> (In passing - horses tend to be far worse than either pedestrians or
> bikes as far as churning up paths goes.)
True., but horses should be on bridleways, I thought?
--
Brian
Brian Watson
> Brian Watson wrote:
>> "Philip Shore" <pm...@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
>> news:h18gp8$cqo$1...@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk...
>>
>
>>> Personally, I would ignore the sign, walk your bike past the house and
>>> jump on when out of sight.
>>
>> I suppose the fact that you may well be rutting the footpath for walkers
>> doesn't concern you?
>
> I think you are overplaying the amount of damage a bicycle wheel can do in
> our flat fens. It is probably of a similar amount to a foot, possibly
> less.
But footpaths are for feet, just as cycleways are for cycles and bridleways
are for horses.
--
Brian
"Fight like the Devil, die like a gentleman."
Tony Raven
says...
>
> I suppose the fact that you may well be rutting the footpath for walkers
> doesn't concern you?
>
A bicycle causes no greater physical impact on the surface than a
walker.
http://www.mbosc.org/Impacts/
--
Tony
"The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has
taken place"
George Bernard Shaw
Tony Raven
says...
>
> But footpaths are for feet, just as cycleways are for cycles and bridleways
> are for horses.
>
>
Bridleways are for feet, cycles and horses.
Al Grant
> "Paul Rudin" <paul.nos...@rudin.co.uk> wrote in message
> > (In passing - horses tend to be far worse than either pedestrians or
> > bikes as far as churning up paths goes.)
>
> True., but horses should be on bridleways, I thought?
They can be on footpaths by permission of the
landowner. Local riders often come to private
arrangements with landowners. Many footpaths
go through fields with livestock in and through
gates where livestock churn up the mud.
The landowner can permit all kinds of traffic on
public footpaths - livestock, tractors, quad bikes,
horses, even hunts. They must all give way to
pedestrians, but pedestrian rights are only to
"pass and repass" and not to wilfully obstruct
the landowner's use and enjoyment of their land.
Brian Watson
"Tony Raven" <ju...@raven-family.invalid> wrote in message
news:MPG.24a59036a...@news.nildram.co.uk...
> In article <7a1ao0F...@mid.individual.net>, Br...@imagebus.co.uk
> says...
>
>>
>> But footpaths are for feet, just as cycleways are for cycles and
>> bridleways
>> are for horses.
>>
>>
>
> Bridleways are for feet, cycles and horses.
OK. Apology offered.
Tony Raven
<phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> says...
>
> But it is not illegal to cycle on a footpath, unless it is the footway
> forming part of a road.
>
You are though committing the civil offence of trespass if you don't
have the landowner's permission.
Tony Raven
<phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> says...
> Tony Raven <ju...@raven-family.invalid> considered Sat, 20 Jun 2009
> 22:25:38 +0100 the perfect time to write:
>
> >You are though committing the civil offence of trespass if you don't
> >have the landowner's permission.
> >
> Although the number of "no cycling" signs seem to indicate that it's
> the landowner who has to show that permission has been witheld, and
> that in the absence of such signs the permission can be assumed.
Is the wrong answer just as you can't assume you can go uninvited and
have a barbecue and sunbathe in someone else's garden if they don't have
a No Trespassing sign up. Private land is private land unless there is
a right of way defined across it. The right of way conferred by a
footpath is one to pass and repass on foot, nothing else. It confers no
right to pass on a cycle, horse, motor vehicle, segway or anything else.
The purpose of the No Cycling signs is most likely to prevent a
bridleway right of way being established for horses and bicycles which
can occur if unopposed use occurs for 20 years. It used to be that such
a right could only be established through 20 years use on horseback but
I believe use by bicycles is now also accepted. (Bicycles have no
established rights of way but are permitted under the Countryside Act
1968 to use bridleways provided they give way to pedestrians and horses)
> There may also be exceptions where the cycle is being used as a
> mobility aid by a disabled person, who would not be able to use the
> path on foot (in much the same way as you can't put up a sign saying
> "no wheelchairs") as in that case the cycle IS a wheelchair.
>
Wheelchairs, prams and push chairs are classed as "usual
accompaniments" of a person on foot. A bicycle isn't. Under case law,
you are allowed to wheel one but not to cycle or scoot it.
The law in Scotland is different and a general right to roam now exists.
Roland Perry
Sun, 21 Jun 2009, Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.invalid> remarked:
>>You are though committing the civil offence of trespass if you don't
>>have the landowner's permission.
>>
>Although the number of "no cycling" signs seem to indicate that it's
>the landowner who has to show that permission has been witheld, and
>that in the absence of such signs the permission can be assumed.
Do you put a sign on your bike saying "don't steal me"; because using
that logic, the absence of a sign gives people permission.
>There may also be exceptions where the cycle is being used as a
>mobility aid by a disabled person, who would not be able to use the
>path on foot (in much the same way as you can't put up a sign saying
>"no wheelchairs") as in that case the cycle IS a wheelchair.
Nonsense!
--
Roland Perry
tony sayer
>bridleway right of way being established for horses and bicycles which
>can occur if unopposed use occurs for 20 years. It used to be that such
>a right could only be established through 20 years use on horseback but
>I believe use by bicycles is now also accepted. (Bicycles have no
>established rights of way but are permitted under the Countryside Act
>1968 to use bridleways provided they give way to pedestrians and horses)
>
Seeing that the British are fast becoming the Lard Arses of Europe then
perhaps our dishonourable friends in the house could redeem themselves
to make more cycleways and pathways so that this encouraged them to get
off their ever spreading and thus hopefully extend their existence's on
this earth as well as reliving the massive load on the HNS with all the
illnesses they incur;!....
>> There may also be exceptions where the cycle is being used as a
>> mobility aid by a disabled person, who would not be able to use the
>> path on foot (in much the same way as you can't put up a sign saying
>> "no wheelchairs") as in that case the cycle IS a wheelchair.
>>
>
>Wheelchairs, prams and push chairs are classed as "usual
>accompaniments" of a person on foot. A bicycle isn't. Under case law,
>you are allowed to wheel one but not to cycle or scoot it.
>
>The law in Scotland is different and a general right to roam now exists.
>
Very sensible Jock's too;)..
--
Tony Sayer
Roland Perry
>>>mobility aid by a disabled person, who would not be able to use the
>>>path on foot (in much the same way as you can't put up a sign saying
>>>"no wheelchairs") as in that case the cycle IS a wheelchair.
>>
>>Nonsense!
>
>legislation where the precise configuration of a wheelchair is
>defined, and where public footpaths are exempted from the requirement
>not to unfairly discriminate.
>
>Act, Section & paragraph please.
I'll do that after you point out where in the legislation the obligation
arises.
--
Roland Perry
Tony Raven
<phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> says...
> Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> considered Sun, 21 Jun 2009 09:32:32
> +0100 the perfect time to write:
>
> >Sun, 21 Jun 2009, Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.invalid> remarked:
> >>mobility aid by a disabled person, who would not be able to use the
> >>path on foot (in much the same way as you can't put up a sign saying
> >>"no wheelchairs") as in that case the cycle IS a wheelchair.
> >
> >Nonsense!
>
> legislation where the precise configuration of a wheelchair is
> defined, and where public footpaths are exempted from the requirement
> not to unfairly discriminate.
>
> Act, Section & paragraph please.
>
The question of the DDA and footpaths/rights of way is an interesting
one given the large number of gates and stiles, to say nothing of the
surface conditions. DEFRA have recently produced a note on it (Rights
of Way Circular 1/09) and there is a British Standard (BS5709:2006) for
gaps, gates, stiles etc which takes into consideration the DDA. But on
the ground its a different matter. However none of that affects the
situation that a bicycle is not a wheelchair and will have about as much
success in Court as some Hampstead Heath cyclists in London had recently
in persuading the Court that when scooting their bicycles on no-cycling
paths, they were scooters.
Mark Goodge
<phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> put finger to keyboard and typed:
>Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> considered Sun, 21 Jun 2009 09:32:32
>+0100 the perfect time to write:
>
>>In message <po4r35dartl18kesb...@4ax.com>, at 03:05:03 on
>>Sun, 21 Jun 2009, Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.invalid> remarked:
>>>There may also be exceptions where the cycle is being used as a
>>>mobility aid by a disabled person, who would not be able to use the
>>>path on foot (in much the same way as you can't put up a sign saying
>>>"no wheelchairs") as in that case the cycle IS a wheelchair.
>>
>>Nonsense!
>
>I look forward to you pointing out in the disability discrimination
>legislation where the precise configuration of a wheelchair is
>defined, and where public footpaths are exempted from the requirement
>not to unfairly discriminate.
There is no such requirement to permit wheelchair users to be able to
access public rights of way across private land. In fact, the majority
of public rights of way across private land are not accessible to
wheelchair users.
If a path running along the route of a public right of way is
constructed and/or maintained by the local authority, then the path
itself is a service provision (and the LA a service provider) under
the DDA and there is a requirement to make reasonable adjustments to
allow disabled access. However, in practice many rights of way are not
amenable to the necessary adjustments even if the LA maintains the
path along its route. If there is no maintained path at all (eg, the
route is across unmarked fields or is marked simply by normal wear and
tear from people walking on it) then there is no service being
provided and hence no service provider under the meaning of the DDA,
so the obligations of the DDA do not apply. The Countryside and Rights
of Way Act requires landowners to ensure that a right of way is not
obstructed, but this does not imply any requirement to create or
maintain a path along the route.
Neither the DDA nor the CaRoWA place any obligation whatsoever on the
landowner with regard to disabled access along public rights of way on
their property. The landowner is not a service provider under the DDA,
since they are not providing the service - the right of way is granted
by the local authority, so the LA is the relevent service provider in
law - and the CaRoWA doesn't impose any obligations beyond those
necessary to ensure that a right of way is not obstructed to passage
on foot.
Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk
Roland Perry
Mon, 22 Jun 2009, Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.invalid> remarked:
>I was only able to enjoy a visit to Whipsnade Park due to them
>checking the DDA requirements and specifically exempting me (and
>presumably others in the same position) from the cycling ban that they
>normally operate.
>Since it took several weeks to arrange, and went up to board level for
>approval, I've little doubt that legal advice was obtained.
Did they say the reason for the dispensation was a legal requirement, or
just them being nice to you?
--
Roland Perry
Mark Goodge
<phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> put finger to keyboard and typed:
>Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> considered Sun, 21 Jun
>2009 17:49:30 +0100 the perfect time to write:
>>
>>Neither the DDA nor the CaRoWA place any obligation whatsoever on the
>>landowner with regard to disabled access along public rights of way on
>>their property. The landowner is not a service provider under the DDA,
>>since they are not providing the service - the right of way is granted
>>by the local authority, so the LA is the relevent service provider in
>>law - and the CaRoWA doesn't impose any obligations beyond those
>>necessary to ensure that a right of way is not obstructed to passage
>>on foot.
>>
>I would refer you to British Standard (BS5709:2006) for
>gaps, gates, stiles etc which takes into consideration the DDA.
It does indeed. But there is no law which says that gaps, gates,
stiles, etc have to be constructed in accordance with BS5709:2006, or
that making rights of way accessible to the disabled is obligatory
Rather, the point of BS5709:2006 is to give guidance for the benefit
of those who do need to comply with the DDA when creating or
maintaining paths.
In other words, BS5709:2006 has nothing at all to say on the question
of whether or not the DDA applies to any particular path along a right
of way. BS5709:2006 only comes into play once a path has previously
been determined to fall within the remit of the DDA. And the
situations in which it does are those I described in my previous post.
Tony Raven
use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk says...
>
> It does indeed. But there is no law which says that gaps, gates,
> stiles, etc have to be constructed in accordance with BS5709:2006, or
> that making rights of way accessible to the disabled is obligatory
> Rather, the point of BS5709:2006 is to give guidance for the benefit
> of those who do need to comply with the DDA when creating or
> maintaining paths.
Semi-true. BS5709:2006 is not mandatory but there is a legal
requirement, for the installation of stiles, gates etc on footpaths and
bridleways, on either the Council or Highway Authority under s147 of the
Highways Act 1980 for which the BS is the standard by which discharge of
that requirement would likely be assessed by the Courts.
>
> In other words, BS5709:2006 has nothing at all to say on the question
> of whether or not the DDA applies to any particular path along a right
> of way. BS5709:2006 only comes into play once a path has previously
> been determined to fall within the remit of the DDA. And the
> situations in which it does are those I described in my previous post.
>
The Disability Discrimination Commission has ruled that Public
Rights of Way are a service provision and s60 of CROW requires that the
Rights of Way Improvement Plan assesses "the accessibility of local
rights of way to blind or partially sighted persons and others with
mobility problems". Again the BS would be the reference standard for
discharging that obligation in respect of gaps, gates etc but there is
no standard for surface conditions which would also need to be addressed
in the ROWIP.
The Countryside Agency has also produced useful guidance.
http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/enjoying/outdoorsforall/diversi
tyreview/publications/disabledcountrysideaccess.aspx
(I note this is not inconsistent with what you have written before)
Jon Warbrick
Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
> ...
>Rather, the point of BS5709:2006 is to give guidance for the benefit
>of those who do need to comply with the DDA when creating or
>maintaining paths.
... and, to be fair, who chose to do so.
Jon.
--
Jon Warbrick
Mark Goodge
and typed:
>In article <hccu351cfqsh6q2t6...@news.markshouse.net>,
>use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk says...
>>
>> It does indeed. But there is no law which says that gaps, gates,
>> stiles, etc have to be constructed in accordance with BS5709:2006, or
>> that making rights of way accessible to the disabled is obligatory
>> Rather, the point of BS5709:2006 is to give guidance for the benefit
>> of those who do need to comply with the DDA when creating or
>> maintaining paths.
>
>Semi-true. BS5709:2006 is not mandatory but there is a legal
>requirement, for the installation of stiles, gates etc on footpaths and
>bridleways, on either the Council or Highway Authority under s147 of the
>Highways Act 1980 for which the BS is the standard by which discharge of
>that requirement would likely be assessed by the Courts.
Yes, but those are the circumstances where the DDA does apply - places
where a path along a right of way or access points to a right of way
are created and/or maintained by the local authority. In such cases
the local authority is the service provider under the meaning of the
DDA and hence the service they provide must be compliant with it.
>> In other words, BS5709:2006 has nothing at all to say on the question
>> of whether or not the DDA applies to any particular path along a right
>> of way. BS5709:2006 only comes into play once a path has previously
>> been determined to fall within the remit of the DDA. And the
>> situations in which it does are those I described in my previous post.
>>
>
>The Disability Discrimination Commission has ruled that Public
>Rights of Way are a service provision and s60 of CROW requires that the
>Rights of Way Improvement Plan assesses "the accessibility of local
>rights of way to blind or partially sighted persons and others with
>mobility problems". Again the BS would be the reference standard for
>discharging that obligation in respect of gaps, gates etc but there is
>no standard for surface conditions which would also need to be addressed
>in the ROWIP.
Also true, but, again, the service provider under the meaning of the
DDA is the authority which grants the right of way - that is, in most
cases, the local council.
The real point I'm making here is that the owner of land crossed by a
public right of way has no obligation whatsoever to make it accessible
to the disabled. The only obligation placed on the landowner is to
ensure that the right of way is not obstructed, and there is plenty of
existing case law to define "not obstructed" as meaning "able to be
traversed on foot". If there is any obligation to provide access to
the disabled, it falls on the local authority responsible for granting
the right of way.
What this means in practice is that there is no obligation, legal or
otherwise, on a local authority to provide disabled access to a right
of way unless the the landowner is willing to permit the authority to
carry out the necessary work (or to do the work himself). The granting
of a right of way is a statutory power, and section 59 of the DDA
explicitly excludes such circumstances from its remit. Essentially, it
works like this:
1. A local authority must grant (or recognise) a right of way where
the conditions for it to be granted or recognised exist. The lack of
ability to access a right of way is not sufficient reason for it not
to be granted.
2. The granting of a right of way is a service provision under the
DDA, and hence disabled access must be considered by the LA when
granting a right of way.
3. However, the LA has (in most cases) no power to compel the
landowner to provide access for the disabled or to permit the LA to
carry out work on his property in order to provide access for the
disabled.
4. Therefore, under section 59 of the DDA, points 3 and 1 override
point 2. The right of way must, by law, be granted, but the LA has no
power to make it accessible for the disabled. Therefore the LA is
explicitly released from its obligations under the DDA in this
respect.
Obviously, the overall provisions of the DDA oblige authorities to
make reasonable attempts to gain the necessary cooperation from the
landowners in order to improve access. And there are a few cases where
they actually can compel the landowner to cooperate, although this is
difficult and costly. However, even where the LA *can* carry out work
to make a right of way accessible to the disabled, it is only obliged
to make "reasonable" adjustments. Given the nature of the terrain
crossed by many rights of way, together with the historic basis behind
many rights of way, there are often no adjustments possible which are
sufficiently reasonable. And even where it is possible, it may not be
cost-effective or a high priority. The law recognises that service
providers have limited budgets, and doesn't expect them to spend
unreasonable amounts on improving accessibility. In particular, local
authorities are severely constrained by law as to what they can spend
their money on, and DDA improvements to rights of way are not
necessarily justifiable.
Tony Raven
<phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> says...
> So there's no way to require improvements to facilitate access, but if
> you use a mobility aid which can manage the path without it being
> improved, you're ok. And they probably can't deliberately degrade
> access below what it was when the right of way was granted.
> That seems like a good argument in favour of using a cycle as a
> mobility aid to me :)
>
>
For the tiny percentage such as yourself who are mobility impaired but
able to cycle, when it could qualify as such, yes.
Roland Perry
>>just them being nice to you?
>
>waist height was hardly a reasonable interpretation of the DDA.
>Until I pointed out the DDA aspect, they were insistent that using my
>cycle would be "impossible".
>On the occasion of the visit, a ZSL director travelled from London to
>provide me with an elfin safety briefing which a local member of staff
>sat in on in order to be able to provide future briefings himself.
>This was apparently an insurance requirement.
>Seems odd that they don't require similar briefings for the drivers
>they allow in (or users of more conventional wheelchairs), but I
>didn't see much point in kicking up a fuss over that.
>After all, the whole point was for me to be able to participate in a
>coach trip there, and I'd managed that.
But did they say the reason for the dispensation was a legal
Roland Perry
>>requirement, or just them being nice to you?
>
>he would be trained to give it in future cases indicates a genuine
>change of policy, so it wasn't just me they decided to be nice to.
>I didn't enquire about how they reached the decision - it was the one
>I wanted, so I had no particular reason to; but it would seem strange
>that they would only decide to be nice after I'd brought up the matter
>of the DDA.
Lots of things happen (in many organisations) that aren't a legal
requirement, once senior management have been alerted to the issue and
had the opportunity to think about it properly.
--
Roland Perry
Francis Davey
>
> My understanding is that trespass to land is _not_ something that requires
> damage to be actionable. However, I _think_ that the only thing that
Yes, that's basically right for complex historical reasons (by the
fourteenth century it was clear that suing someone for trespass was
much much better in most cases than suing them for anything else, this
gets awkward when suing for breach of contract/debt etc so a practice
grew up of permitting "actions on the case" where rather than alleging
that someone had forcefully entered your property, you'd just allege
the damage you'd suffered; great but you had to actually suffer some
damage).
> the property owner can sue for is either compensation or a court order.
Yes. You'd get nominal damages (in theory I suppose you could get
exemplary damages if someone was making a profit out of it or
aggravated damages if they were very rude about it) but you could also
claim injunctive relief (which is the norm.).
>
> The best information I have, therefore, is that if the landowner chose
> to sue you, and there was no damage provable, they could be awarded an
> injunction ordering you not to do it again. If you then repeated the
> action, you _would_ have committed a criminal offence.
No, not even then. The landowner could ask the court to commit you to
prison, but that's not the same thing. Its harder to do than it sounds
(believe me).
Francis
Richard Torrens (News)
and the rest of the site seems to say it all!
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Torrens. News email address is valid - for a limited time only.
http://www.Torrens.org.uk for genealogy, natural history, wild food, walks, cats
and more!
Francis Davey
+14...@Torrens.org.uk> wrote:
> http://www.trespasslaw.co.uk/common_misconceptions.html
>
Ouch.
"Can i remove sumone from my property if they refuse to leave?"
"If as a land owner you do forcibly eject an individual or an
individuals possessions or both you are leaving yourself liable for
criminal proceedings for undue force and damage."
+ there's no such thing as proceedings for "undue force and damage",
you could be sued for trespass to the person or goods or conversion
and prosecuted for assault, battery and/or criminal damage...
"On the other hand however, certain trespass' can cause actual loss
though such examples are usualy complex in nature." - two in the same
sentence.
Its also nice to see the information provisions of the e-commerce
directive being flouted.
Francis