https://www.transport.gov.scot/publication/roads-for-all-good-practice-guide-for-roads/j256264-07
4.3.2. Gives all the guidance.
Anything steeper than 1:20 is considered a ramp...
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure
2 New Dropped Kerbs on Craigs Road
(119 posts)-
Posted 6 years ago #
-
Always good to know what can and can't be done.
Posted 6 years ago # -
"Police in Edinburgh are investigating following an attempted robbery on a cycle path near Mearenside, between Bughtlin and Maybury Drive.
...the man left in the direction of Mayberry Drive empty handed."[/i]A shocking incident for the woman involved, but for the purposes of this thread more surprising that even the police apparently don't know that the legal status of the East Craigs Paths. (and can't spell Maybury).
Posted 6 years ago # -
The quick version of my question is what "legal means" are there to outlaw cycling on a footpath (under the land act 2003) other than a TRO?
The longer version with background is:
I am about to submit an FOI request to the council regarding the status of the East Craigs path network. Although some parts of the council have said that there is TRO outlawing cycling on them they appear on the Council's cycling maps.
The reasoning given for cycling being outlawed was:
"Having checked our records I can confirm that these paths have been adopted as footpaths under the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984...
Due to the paths being adopted the provisions of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 do not apply and cycling is therefore not currently permitted legally."But that seems incorrect as the 2003 Act appears to allow cycling on any path where access has not been restricted by a Traffic Regulation Order or through other legal means.
In my FOI I will be asking for evidence of any TROs applying to the path network but would like to know what else might be outlawing cycling. The mere act of adopting them as footpaths surely doesn't change their legal status.
Posted 5 years ago # -
The mere act of adopting them as footpaths surely doesn't change their legal status.
Pretty sure you're right. The footpaths in the Meadows are all adopted, for example. You could explicitly ask in your FoI if there are other legal means prohibiting cycling there.
Do the paths have names?
Posted 5 years ago # -
Thanks Frenchy, unless anyone here can suggest another legal means then that is what I will do.
Although some of them have informal names (eg Burnside Path) I am not sure what legal name they were adopted under. They do not appear on the published council list of roads, although we have been told this is an oversight.
In my FOI I plan to ask for details of all adopted paths (ie not adjacent to roads) within the are bounded by A8, Maybury, Drumbrae and A90.
I could be more specific but there are a few others which it would be useful to know about.
Posted 5 years ago # -
It is an offence to cycle along a footpath under Section 129(5) of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984. A footpath is defined in Section 151 of the 1984 Act as a road not associated with a carriageway over which the public right of passage is by foot only.
Posted 5 years ago # -
@Morningsider
I think the Land Reform Act 2003 overrules that, with cyclists enjoying the "right of responsible access" on footpaths.
Posted 5 years ago # -
neddie - Section (6)(1)(d) of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 states that access rights are not exercisable over land "to which public access is, by or under any enactment other than this Act, prohibited, excluded or restricted".
As I mentioned above - cycling on a footpath is prohibited by the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984, which would count as an "enactment". By my reading - this means land reform access rights cannot be exercised over a footpath, although they can be exercised over most paths in parks and rural areas, which are not adopted and have no particular legislative protection.
Posted 5 years ago # -
I think the Land Reform Act 2003 overrules that, with cyclists enjoying the "right of responsible access" on footpaths.
No, Morningsider's right.
The 2003 act basically allows cycling anywhere, but there's an exception in it saying something like "except where prohibited by other Acts" - which includes the 1984 Act.
So cycling on adopted paths is only legal if there's a TRO saying it's legal (which presumably is the case in The Meadows) or if they're designated as core paths.
How a cyclist is supposed to whether a path is adopted without numerous FoI requests is another matter.
Posted 5 years ago # -
The Roads Act covers footpaths and not just footways - wow, I am surprised.
Posted 5 years ago # -
Morningsider, I realise you are far more qualified to form an opinion on legal matters than me (IANAL). However, my reading of Section (6)(1)(d) of the land act is that it is referring to the accessing of the land, rather than the activity performed on the land.
Public access is not prohibited, excluded or restricted from the paths and therefore the rights granted under the Land Reform act should apply.
What is the flaw in my reading?
Posted 5 years ago # -
acsimpson - I suspect Cycling UK make it a bit clearer than I could:
"Footways/footpaths: this right does not extend to roadside footways (‘pavements’) or footpaths (a way not associated with a carriageway). This is because the Act exempts land that is already subject to restrictions imposed on it by any other Act (section 6(1)d), or by a Traffic Regulation Order. As the Act that covers footway/footpath cycling is still in force (Roads (Scotland) Act 1984, s129(5)), it is still illegal to cycle on a footpath or footway (unless it has been converted to dual use through a Redetermination of Means of Exercise of Right of Passage Order)."
Posted 5 years ago # -
What is an “adopted footpath”? And why would a footpath get adopted?
Posted 5 years ago # -
neddie - an adopted footpath is one that has been added to the list of public roads maintained by each Scottish local authority (bearing in mind that the legal definition of a footpath is a road, not associated with a carriageway, where the right of passage is restricted to foot only). The process of adding a road to the list is known as adoption and is set out in Section 1 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984.
Once a road has been adopted, responsibility for its maintenance lies with the local authority - in its guise as local roads authority. Unadopted footpaths and footways cause a surprising amount of problems, e.g. https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/news/local/fife/613982/plea-to-end-half-a-century-of-road-confusion-for-cowdenbeath-residents/
Posted 5 years ago # -
From link -
“
“They are financially responsible for the repairs and maintenance of certain public footpaths and sections of roads based on some obscure interpretation of wording from a paragraph in a document dating back to the early seventies.
“Also, there has been a farcical misinterpretation at some point where Fife Council has mistaken the rear of the properties for the front.
“
Posted 5 years ago # -
Thanks Morningsider. I guess I initially need to confirm the adoption status of the paths along with any TROs covering them.
After that it will be a case of picking which ones we think are best for conversion to core paths. This seems to be a simpler route than requesting TROs to allow cycling on them.
Posted 5 years ago # -
Reading this thread as I was looking for info on core paths and saw it was linked from elsewhere. Based on the posts above, is this correct regarding the legalities of cycling?
- Allowed on core paths regardless of adoption status and on unadopted footways/paths (responsible access applies of course)
- Not allowed on adopted footways/paths (or anywhere else access/cycling is prohibited by sign/TRO/Land Reform Act)
For those in Fife the council helpfully has a map which highlights in green all of the roads, footways, verges, and other paths which are adopted: http://arcgisweb.fife.gov.uk/LocalViewExt/Sites/AdoptedRoadsPublic/ (need to zoom in a fair bit to see them)
Posted 3 years ago # -
<Bump>
What you say is inline with my understanding but there are some more expert minds on here...
Posted 3 years ago # -
Turns out there is in fact a map of Edinburgh's adopted roads: https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=380f7aa132384c7f8f9d0385536836c8
Another interesting legal question is whether a core path marked on a footway effectively redefines it as a cycle track - since the Roads (Scotland) Act s151 (1A) says if "...by pedal cycle and foot only, the road is a “cycle track”".
That would usefully make it an offence to park a motor vehicle on such a footway/core path [s129 (6)].
Posted 3 years ago # -
Hallelujah
https://twitter.com/Mr_Mark_Brown/status/1514927896124608518?t=5C7YTnEGVj-hVoRUPIsTEg&s=19
8 years ago on this thread I agitated as to why the Craigmount Steps* were steps an not a ramp.
They have now been converted. Hooray.
*Craigmount Steps provide the rear access to the Craigmount HS and a a useful connection between the East Craigs Path Network and QR9.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Well done HC (and local councillor)
How’s it going with the dropped kerbs?
http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=12153#post-142929
Posted 2 years ago # -
As a whole East Craigs is still a terribly lacking in dropped kerbs. There has been a couple which have been changed but no where near enough.
But the topic of the original post and the lack of dropped kerb on Craigs Rd has now been 'solved' as one of the newly* installed gates has been removed meaning you can access the path network using the kerb they installed for their vans only**
*by newly, I mean 8 years ago when I started this thread.
** I've still never seen a van use it.
Posted 2 years ago # -
“I've still never seen a van use it”
No rubbish or grit bins then?
Did ownership/legal status for bikes ever get sorted out?
Posted 2 years ago # -
One for the legal eagles on here...
https://maps.app.goo.gl/hZ3cixEcEUNue7N26
This zigzag path is a very useful connector between housing estates but doesn't have a dropped kerb.
Initial response from council officers is that 'cyclists shouldn't be using it' which clearly ignores other wheeled user...
But am I also right in thinking that as it isn't alongside a roadway, cycling is allowed on it?
If so what are the technical terms/references I should use in my reply?
Posted 1 year ago # -
No rubbish or grit bins then?
Bins get emptied but they continue to drive across a different grassy section to get to the path & causing mud and tyre tracks.
id ownership/legal status for bikes ever get sorted out?
Nope. Not sure its worth the hassle of fighting it when it's not really causing an issue.
Posted 1 year ago # -
My only advice is show that there is a reasonable amount of local support for the idea.
Are buggy pushers regular users?
Presume wheelchairs users aren’t?
But before that, tell CEC that you’ve been advised (you have) that Access legislation means it’s legal to cycle there.
Posted 1 year ago # -
But am I also right in thinking that as it isn't alongside a roadway, cycling is allowed on it?
This isn't my understanding.
According to the council's list of public roads it is a "footpath", and you're not allowed to cycle on "footpaths". I think this is the specific legislation, but probably more helpful to search @Morningsider's posts for the word "footpath".
Dropped kerb still absolutely necessary for other wheeled users.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Assuming what I wrote further up the page about allowed/not allowed is correct, based on what Morningsider has said - because it is an adopted footway then access rights allowing cycling do not apply. You can see the adoption status on this updated link: https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=fa297f2feb4e4beea8ce6b74943cfb51
Though I did notice someone cycling there in December 2020 Street View: https://goo.gl/maps/bfHUvhv1tPxN6H74A - certainly makes sense to use it if going west rather than a 500m detour.
Edit: these bollards don't have a blue cycle sign, but the cut through is adopted as a carriageway which presumably makes it ok to cycle through? https://goo.gl/maps/9ENFAeE1qP1sg4PH6
Posted 1 year ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
posts
