CityCyclingEdinburgh was launched on the 27th of October 2009 as "an experiment".
IT’S TRUE!
CCE is 15years old!
Well done to ALL posters
It soon became useful and entertaining. There are regular posters, people who add useful info occasionally and plenty more who drop by to watch. That's fine. If you want to add news/comments it's easy to register and become a member.
RULES No personal insults. No swearing.
So, some of you will have seen Magnatom's recent blogposts about proposals in Glasgow. One of them suggests that in parks bikes are expected to keep below 5mph while the car limit is 10.
Anyone know if that is legal under access regs and such like?
<paging dr morningsider>
Hard to say how they could regulate that since bikes don't have to have speedometers.
It's silly, of course, but my assumption is that the speed limit is set artificially low so that there's an easy way to admonish twerps behaving like twerps rather than any serious expectation that cyclists will travel at 5mph (or that cars will travel at 10mph).
Perhaps there will be a metal track alongside all the routes with a stuffed hare (or better still, a stuffed councillor!) which travels along at 5mph. Then, if you pass it you'll know you've exceeded the limit ;-)
So what about events like Pedal for Scotland? Is everyone to limit themselves to 5mph as they travel through Glasgow Green? Yes, I imagine for many doing the 50 mile route it may be about the same speed they are able to go at due to the numbers involved, but I still could see less able riders toppling over.
Frankly, a ludicrous idea to limit bicycles to a slower speed than motorised vehicles, regardless of the fact they can't impose a strict limit due to the lack of compulsory speedos on bikes.
Will runners be banned too? I usually run at between 6 and 7 miles an hour...
The Land Reform Act is clear that "A person has access rights only if they are exercised responsibly". Glasgow City Council would probably argue that cycling in an urban park is only responsible behaviour if done at low speed.
Regulating motor vehicle speeds in a park is completely different. Land reform access rights do not apply to motorised vehicles. I doubt many (any?) of the paths in Glasgow's parks are legally defined as roads - this means they are just land, over which the Council (as owner) can impose any reasonable restrictions on motor vehicles they see fit.
Section 112 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 allows local authorities to make "management rules" for public parks and other land that they own. You can be expelled from land by a local authority officer for breaching the rules and excluded for up to a year, by Order. Failure to comply with a request to leave or breaching an exclusion order is an offence, punishable by a fine of up to £50.
The Glasgow park management rules are available at:
http://www.glasgow.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=14067&p=0
These seem much more reasonable/flexible than the proposed rules:
Morningsider, leaving aside access rights, are you suggesting that where there are roads in parks, they can have a speed limit of 5mph for bikes and 10 for cars?
Without any overriding legislation I expect it’s their ball they can set the rules. Stupid as they may be.
It looks as though the old rules say 5mph for everyone...
I'm tempted to ask, who would be checking that cyclists are not exceeding 5mph and how would they be doing this? A brisk walk is about 4mph, after all.
It's a source of unending frustration that legislation can be so complicated, and that I have no trust at all that Glasgow City Council will ensure what they're doing actually works. Such is life...
I haz questions/observations:
The Land Reform Act presumably doesn't overrule the earlier Civic Government Act? Seems against the ethos if a council could write out the former by specifically exluding activities in their Management Rules.
I note they're actually proposing to double the motor vehicle speed limit.
Would the speed limit require a TRO? Or are all bet's off becuase it's private land?
Is it private land, in the same sense as my front garden? What's public land?
Questions to Google over lunch methinks!
I'm just reading the existing rules.
Thou shalt not beat rugs (or carpets, tapestries, etc) within a Glasgow park.
Finger on the pulse of city life, absolutely...
No importuning either.
I can see that being a useful clause for parents.
SRD - quite the opposite. If it is a road, then no speed limit can be applied to bikes - but the speed limit for cars can be set through the normal means.
Darkerside - the two Acts sit side by side. The Council couldn't ban cycling through its management rules. The rules can be used to regulate behaviour - including the behaviour of cyclists exercising their access rights.
The speed limits in parks aren't set through a TRO, as these only apply to roads. Most (almost all) paths in parks aren't roads, so speed limits are set through the management rules
Many public parks have been gifted to the Council and aren't really owned by them - they are part of the "common good fund" and generally can't be sold, as other land owned by the Council can. The Council do have statutory management powers over these parks though. Some parks are simply owned by the Council though - they could sell them tomorrow for development if they wanted and public access could be denied forever. It's all pretty complicated.
Sorry to continue picking your brain on this...
So if I take a park that doesn't have a tarmaced path in the direction I want to go, although the 200? Land Reform Act states that I have a right of way via bicycle as long as I behave appropriately, the council can impose park management rules that rescind that right via 1982 legislation?
To make an absurd example, I'm not allowed to use flat areas of grass to teach a child how to ride a bike?
This is a tricky one. The management rules cannot ban cycling in urban parks, that would breach the 2003 Act, but can impose restrictions on where and how you cycle. The 2003 Act requires all bylaws to be compliant with its provisions, but doesn't mention management rules - although I would imagine they also have to be compliant.
The question is - do the proposed Glasgow management rules go too far in restricting responsible access rights? I would say they possibly do - your example of banning child cycle training on grass is a great way of showing this.
The best way to deal with this is to get as many people as possible to respond to the consultation, highlighting this issue.
I wish I could give you a straight answer. The fact that access rights apply in urban areas was something of an unexpected consequenece of the 2003 Act. Everyone was so excited about the right to roam the Scottish countryside, that they never really considered that it would apply in urban areas. After all - everyone can walk in urban parks anyway, cycling was a distant afterthought.
From the Outdoor Access Code:
RESPONSIBLE BEHAVIOUR BY THE PUBLIC
Access rights extend to cycling. Cycling on hard surfaces, such as wide paths and tracks, causes few problems. On narrow routes, cycling may cause problems for other people, such as walkers and horse riders. If this occurs, dismount and walk until the path becomes suitable again. Do not endanger walkers and horse riders: give other users advance warning of your presence and give way to them on a narrow path. Take care not to alarm farm animals, horses and wildlife. If you are cycling off-path, particularly in winter, avoid:
• going onto wet, boggy or soft ground; and
• churning up the surface.
RESPONSIBLE BEHAVIOUR BY LAND MANAGERS
Where possible, work with your local authority and other bodies to help identify paths or routes across your land which are suited for cycling. If you need to put a fence across a path or track then install a gate which allows multi-use access.
And
Outdoors. This term includes mountains, moorland, farmland (enclosed and unenclosed), forests, woods, rivers, lochs and reservoirs, beaches and the coastline, and open spaces in towns and cities.
Sorry about the capitals, they were in the original.
Nothing about speed there...
Are horse riders expected to dismount when they encounter pedestrians or cyclists? Are they advised to avoid soft ground?
Don't be silly - that would make second class citizens of them.
I have to admit that a speed limit lower than people travel on foot does seem pointless. It's hard to walk at 5mph but a standard layman's jogging speed of 8:00/mile is 7.5mph, 50% faster than cyclists.
A family car + passenger (~1,500kg) at 10mph has 60 times the kinetic energy of a heavyish bike and rider (~100kg) at 5mph.
The cyclist has to go at ~40mph to have same energy as the car at 10mph.
I wonder which we should really be mandating to slow down?
Horse riding
Access rights extend to horse riding. Riding on firm or hard surfaces, such as wide paths and tracks and well-drained ground, causes few problems. On narrow routes, horse riding may cause problems for other people, such as walkers and cyclists. If this occurs, take extra care by giving way to walkers where possible or by looking for an alternative route.
If you are riding off-path, particularly in winter, take care to avoid:
•going onto wet, boggy or soft ground, and
•churning up the surface.
The Council couldn't ban cycling through its management rules. The rules can be used to regulate behaviour - including the behaviour of cyclists exercising their access rights.
This means that if the council wanted to ban cycling, they would only need to impose an unfeasible (low) speed limit e.g. 1mph for bikes. No one would then cycle, as it would be quicker to walk with your bike !!!!
If this occurs, take extra care by giving way to walkers where possible or by looking for an alternative route.
Thats fine then, by dismounting I become a "walker" and the horse riders should then give way...
Why not issue the same guidance to both user groups, be poilte, don't be an ****.
While it's all very well mandating courtesy and consideration on narrow paths, it does rather blow the whole 'dual network' out of the water: basically Glasgow cyclists are given the choice of Glasgow's roads (which are pretty bloody scary) or a 5mph pootle in the park which isn't going to get anyone to the shops or school or work. If they are going to rely on parks to create a viable and attractive network then at least they have to provide routes that cyclists can use at a reasonable rate to get somewhere. If they aren't willing to do that, then they need to build proper segregated tracks on the roads instead.
But how could any responsible cyclist argue against travelling slowly and courteously around pedestrians? Aren't we always complaining when people travel quickly around us?
Perhaps 5mph is too fast, and 3mph could be considered? Even more courteous and responsible...
Bikes not allowed to be cycled in the Botanic Gardens in Edinburgh. Notnsure if same in Glasgow which has the Botanics and a subsidiary Arboretum.
Post up.
Sorry, it's a long one.
Darkerside - nice one!
Bikes not allowed to be cycled in the Botanic Gardens in Edinburgh
Neither are joggists. But it's not a council park.
You must log in to post.
Cycling in Edinburgh Flickr group
Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin
posts