no entry to bridleway



Status
Not open for further replies.
I

Ianb

Guest
Can I put the following scenario up for debate by the panel (legal eagles, can you let the laymen
play with this for a few days before you wade in with legal opinions please)? A Public Bridleway (as
shown by OS Map and fingerpost) uses the route of a private drive. The landowner has installed "No
Entry" (full size, shape, design as per Highway Code) signs at entrance to the private drive (as
part of a one-way system). As Cyclists wishing to use the Bridleway are we legally in the wrong by
riding through these signs (trespass rather than traffic law)? Could we be prosecuted just by riding
past the signs? Could we be held partly liable in the event of a collision with a car? Would
claiming that we had not passed the signs, i.e. joined the drive from another Bridleway or turned
back just before the exit from the drive be a defence?

Specific site details:- The private drive I have in mind serves a Local Council owned but
privately operated Leisure Centre. Initially this drive was made exit only (many years ago)
after several trees had been accused of jumping out in front of cars leaving the site but on
my last visit it had a full one-way system in operation. The obvious alternative of "using
the one-way" would involve travelling a mile of the nastiest fast/busy road in the district
plus another 1.5 miles back along the one-way, with an extra 200ft of climb. The Bridleway
only uses about 0.5 mile of the drive before turning off and another bridleway joins about
half way along this section. Neither of the junctions between Bridleway & drive has a
one-way traffic sign (white arrow on blue rectangular plate) opposite the Bridleway.
--
IanB

swap my names around (nodots nospaces) to reply to me
n.b. Please respond via n.g. but as I subscribe to two large newsgroups I am usually running a
few days behind on reading threads and so it may be several days before I can respond to any
n.g. reply
 
"IanB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Can I put the following scenario up for debate by the panel (legal
> eagles, can you let the laymen play with this for a few days before you
wade
> in with legal opinions please)? A Public Bridleway (as shown by OS Map and fingerpost) uses
> the route
of
> a private drive. The landowner has installed "No Entry" (full size,
shape,
> design as per Highway Code) signs at entrance to the private drive (as
part
> of a one-way system). As Cyclists wishing to use the Bridleway are we legally in the wrong
by
> riding through these signs (trespass rather than traffic law)? Could we
be
> prosecuted just by riding past the signs? Could we be held partly liable in the event of a
> collision with a car? Would claiming that we had not passed the signs, i.e. joined the drive from
> another Bridleway or turned back just before the exit from the drive be a defence?
>
> Specific site details:- The private drive I have in mind serves a Local Council owned but
> privately operated Leisure Centre. Initially
this
> drive was made exit only (many years ago) after several trees had been accused of jumping out in
> front of cars leaving the site but on my last visit it had a full one-way system in operation. The
> obvious alternative of "using the one-way" would involve travelling a mile of the nastiest
> fast/busy road in the district plus another 1.5 miles back along the one-way, with an extra 200ft
> of climb. The Bridleway only uses about 0.5
mile
> of the drive before turning off and another bridleway joins about half way
along
> this section. Neither of the junctions between Bridleway & drive has a
one-way
> traffic sign (white arrow on blue rectangular plate) opposite the
Bridleway.

You would need to check on the definitive map (held by the Council) to be sure that this is still a
bridleway and that it has not been diverted as part of some traffic scheme.

You would also need to check that there are no TRO's in effect -- given the quasi public nature of
the land strange things may have been implemented.

Then, assuming it is still the bridleway and is not subject to a TRO, you would have to think
what to do. Pointing out that it is a bridleway might have the effect that the Council divert
it properly.

I have no idea if you can have a 'one way' bridleway. Clearly, any such concept would not apply to
pedestrians or (possibly) horses -- but cyclists are vehicles subject to traffic laws.

Maybe the best answer is to do what we are always accused of -- ignore the signs and cycle the wrong
way down a one way. If you can run a red light at nigh without lights on the bike uk.tosspot's
prejudices will have been confirmed.

T
 
>>>>> "Tony" == Tony W <[email protected]> writes:

> I have no idea if you can have a 'one way' bridleway. Clearly, any such concept would
> not apply to pedestrians or (possibly) horses -- but cyclists are vehicles subject to
> traffic laws.

But cyclists have a legally enshrined right to use bridleways. It seems wrong to me that it's
possible to remove that right in a particular case simply by putting up a no entry sign.
 
"Paul Rudin" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> >>>>> "Tony" == Tony W <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > I have no idea if you can have a 'one way' bridleway. Clearly, any such concept would not
> > apply to pedestrians or (possibly) horses -- but cyclists are vehicles subject to traffic
> > laws.
>
> But cyclists have a legally enshrined right to use bridleways. It seems wrong to me that it's
> possible to remove that right in a particular case simply by putting up a no entry sign.

Agreed.

But cyclists have also a legally enshrined right to use streets -- can not use a one way street the
wrong way. A pedestrian can -- there being no restriction on the wanderings of pedestrians.

However, I believe local authorities can enforce traffic signs on some of their land -- I was
stopped by a warden for driving the wrong way in a Luton car-park once. I was let off when I pointed
out that one had to to reach the space marked!!

T
 
Following on from IanB's message. . .
> Can I put the following scenario up for debate by the panel (legal eagles, can you let the
> laymen play with this for a few days before you wade in with legal opinions please)?

Aha! One of those "I have a technical question but I don't want a technical answer" questions.

In that case I suggest you claim Rights of Fruitharrow by strapping a turnip (sweede will do) to
your head and making a noise like an Eccles cake being eaten by a seagull (although older texts say
being shoved up its bottom).

--
PETER FOX Not the same since the poster business went to the wall
 
IanB wrote:
> Can I put the following scenario up for debate by the panel (legal eagles, can you let the
> laymen play with this for a few days before you wade in with legal opinions please)? A Public
> Bridleway (as shown by OS Map and fingerpost) uses the route of a private drive. The landowner
> has installed "No Entry" (full size, shape, design as per Highway Code) signs at entrance to
> the private drive (as part of a one-way system).

Going the wrong way might be a traffic offence, but I don't see how it can be trespass. You could
ask for a contraflow cycle lane, or just ignore the sign.

James
 
IanB wrote:
> A Public Bridleway (as shown by OS Map and fingerpost) uses the route of a private drive. The
> landowner has installed "No Entry" (full size, shape, design as per Highway Code) signs at
> entrance to the private drive (as part of a one-way system). As Cyclists wishing to use the
> Bridleway are we legally in the wrong by riding through these signs (trespass rather than
> traffic law)?

If the land is privately owned then I wouldn't expect the signs to have any legal significance.
But IANAL.

If the drive is designated as a bridleway then cyclists are legally entitled to use it, I can't see
why it should be considered trespass.

Might be a good question for uk.rec.rights-of-way. I haven't been over there since a few weeks after
it was formed, so I don't know how it's turned out.

--
Danny Colyer (remove safety to reply) ( http://www.juggler.net/danny ) Recumbent cycle page:
http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/recumbents/ "He who dares not offend cannot be honest." -
Thomas Paine
 
Paul Rudin wrote:

> But cyclists have a legally enshrined right to use bridleways. It seems wrong to me that it's
> possible to remove that right in a particular case simply by putting up a no entry sign.

Would you say the same about a public road? It is illegal to cycle the wrong way along a one-way
road, so why should this be any different?

--
Stevie D \\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the \\\\\\\__X__///////
common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs" ___\\\\\\\'/
\'///////_____________________________________________
 
"Stevie D" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Paul Rudin wrote:
>
> > But cyclists have a legally enshrined right to use bridleways. It seems wrong to me that it's
> > possible to remove that right in a particular case simply by putting up a no entry sign.
>
> Would you say the same about a public road? It is illegal to cycle the wrong way along a one-way
> road, so why should this be any different?
>
Because it's not a road.
 
On Tue, 02 Sep, Stevie D <[email protected]> wrote:
> Paul Rudin wrote:
>
> > But cyclists have a legally enshrined right to use bridleways. It seems wrong to me that it's
> > possible to remove that right in a particular case simply by putting up a no entry sign.
>
> Would you say the same about a public road? It is illegal to cycle the wrong way along a one-way
> road, so why should this be any different?

In my experience, few one-way roads are created by an adjacent landowner unilaterally deciding to
put up some no-entry signs.

The OP said the landowner put up no entry signs. That being the case, I'd ignore them - there
are few landowners who have the right to grant traffic orders. If it is likely that the
landowner in question is (say) the MOD, I'd maybe rethink that opinion, but otherwise it's just
someone being a pratt.

There's a house near me where the owner has apparently unilaterally decided to redirect the
bridleway that crosses very close to teh house so that it skirts round the back of their
outbuildings. I'm pretty certain it's not official, since teh redirection featured snapping off the
arm of the fingerpost leaving the ragged end pointing where it used to. That and yelling abuse at
anyone following the correct route. As it happens their redirected route is more convenient for me,
so I use it rather than make a legal point across their flower beds.

Once I've got round to checking teh definitive map, I'll possibly take up teh lawn-and-flower-bed
route out of bloody-mindedness.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
 
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 12:56:01 +0100, "IanB" <[email protected]> wrote:

> A Public Bridleway (as shown by OS Map and fingerpost) uses the route of a private drive.

- in which case the drive itself is unlikely to have any highway rights other than the bridleway.
You can check with the local council (Highways) whether it is either adopted road or a UCR
(unclassified road). If it was also a byway that would be shown on the OS map, so you can more or
less rule that out.

> The landowner has installed "No Entry" (full size, shape, design as per Highway Code) signs at
> entrance to the private drive (as part of a one-way system).

Standard traffic signs are for use on roads and other highways. I suppose it might be theoretically
possible to put (legal) traffic signs like this on a bridleway, but I've never heard of it.

> Specific site details:- The private drive I have in mind serves a Local Council owned but
> privately operated Leisure Centre.

That probably explains it. Because of the council connection the leisure centre people may have
access to the signs, but have not thought through the bridleway issue. The signs are evidently
directed at motorised traffic. So far as bridleway users are concerned, the signs are almost certain
non-binding, and might even qualify as a 'misleading sign' which could be an offence.

Even supposing that the 'private' drive did carry vehicular highway rights, it would need a formal
order to make it one-way.

Consult the relevant Highways people - they may not even be aware that the signs have been erected.

--
Pete Bland (email address spam-trapped)
 
Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote: snips about no access to bridleway/path.

> There's a house near me where the owner has apparently unilaterally decided to redirect the
> bridleway that crosses very close to teh house so that it skirts round the back of their
> outbuildings.

You should inform the local council about this.Just a short letter to them to explain things.If
they(the house owners) get away with it, they may then go on to completely blocking the original in
a few years by planting bushes/tress across it. Alan.
--
Change the 'minus' to 'plus' to reply by e-mail. http://www.dvatc.co.uk - Off-road Cycling in the
North Midlands.
 
On Sat, 6 Sep 2003 20:30:02 +0100, A Lee <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote: snips about no access to bridleway/path.
>
> > There's a house near me where the owner has apparently unilaterally decided to redirect the
> > bridleway that crosses very close to teh house so that it skirts round the back of their
> > outbuildings.
>
> You should inform the local council about this.Just a short letter to them to explain things.If
> they(the house owners) get away with it, they may then go on to completely blocking the original
> in a few years by planting bushes/tress across it.

Indeed, and as soon as I get round to checking, I will do so. It is possible that it was a legal
diversion, so I can't rely on the fact that my landranger shows it one way and the signs are
(bodged) another way.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
 
Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:

> > You should inform the local council about this.Just a short letter to them to explain things.If
> > they(the house owners) get away with it, they may then go on to completely blocking the
> > original in a few years by planting bushes/tress across it.
>
> Indeed, and as soon as I get round to checking, I will do so. It is possible that it was a legal
> diversion, so I can't rely on the fact that my landranger shows it one way and the signs are
> (bodged) another way.

Tell the local council anyway, let them check. If it's diverted they will know, if it's not then
they can start taking action, either way they will check whether you have done so already or not.

--
Marc Stickers,decals,membership,cards, T shirts, signs etc for clubs and associations of all types.
http://www.jaceeprint.demon.co.uk/
 
Status
Not open for further replies.