CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure

Midlothian council admits cycle route not suitable for disabled people in FOI

(9 posts)

  1. smsm1
    Member

    A couple of months ago I was trying out the e-bike share scheme in Mid/Mast Lothian and came across a couple of barriers which were difficult to pass. So I put in an FOI (initially to the wrong council): https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/equality_impact_assessment_for_b_6

    I've just got the response back Midlothian council and it admits that the design would inconvenience disabled people.

    https://twitter.com/CrippledCyclist/status/1474207461183737879

    Would anyone who's disabled like to take on Midlothian council over the equality act and limited access?

    Posted 2 years ago #

  2. chdot
    Admin

    So they know that they are discriminatory. Are they obligated to provide an alternative route??

    Posted 2 years ago #

  3. Yodhrin
    Member

    They're obligated not to put in barriers like this in the first place, and if a disabled person shows up and is personally inconvenienced IIRC they can sue and not only force its removal but also get a cash award for their trouble.

    What's sad is that Heavy Metal Handcyclist on twitter has been going after/encouraging others to go after this stuff for a while, and pretty much every council that gets ones of these FOIs does a sheepish mea culpa and just removes them, this is the first time I've seen one attempt a weaselly justification.

    Posted 2 years ago #

  4. smsm1
    Member

    I hadn't followed Heavy Metal Handcyclist's template fully, which is part of the reason why the response has been somewhat woeful. I've had a few people say they were extremely surprised at the response being so wishy washy.

    I've heard of one person take York council to court and they just paid out rather than sort the problem, which is what they really wanted. Though that barrier has since been rectified.

    Having had someone say that council officers have told them more about the barriers I've sent it for review.

    Posted 2 years ago #

  5. Yodhrin
    Member

    York will have spoken to their lawyers and been told that it's not a one-off, they have to pay out the penalty each and every time it happens, and the same person can keep doing it over and over again - if they don't remove these barriers, all it would take is a bus full of disabled activists on adapted cycles and they'd be on the hook for hundreds of thousands. Once that sinks in they tend to get removed pretty sharpish :P

    Posted 2 years ago #

  6. slowcoach
    Member

    Has anyone checked if the path (and gates and barrier) belong to the Council or are a Council responsibility? I saw that the application for permission for repairs to the listed bridge was from Lawfield Estate rather than from the Council. If it is the Council, is it Countryside Ranger service or Roads that are responsible for maintainance?

    Many years ago this type of barrier was standard to try to prevent illegal motorcycle use. I wouldn't be surprised if there are more complaints from users about illegal off-road bikers than there are from people who are prevented by the barriers from using paths legally. Maybe those in charge of the budget need a bit of encouragement to spend some money on removing the barriers.

    Posted 2 years ago #

  7. Yodhrin
    Member

    @slowcoach Apart from knowing who to send the FOI to none of that really matters, AFAIK the Equality Act is pretty explicit and unequivocal - if a disabled person's access to somewhere they're allowed to be is barred they can sue and will win, and the minimum possible award is about a grand, repeatable endlessly until the obstruction is gone. People can complain about trail bikes as much as they like, you can't put in obstructions that would bar passage to a disabled person using a wheelchair, and adapted cycles are classed as wheelchairs. It also imposes a duty to preemptively review things for compliance with the Act, regardless of whether it's existing pre-Act infra or a new project. Of course complying with that and doing tens of thousands of Equalities Impact Assessments would cost a fortune so generally it's ignored until someone points something out with reference to the appropriate law, and then stuff gets removed.

    Posted 2 years ago #

  8. boothym
    Member

    Are there not some parts of the Land Reform Act that can help here? Looks like the second barrier in your FOI is on a core path as well.

    Section 13 -
    (1)It is the duty of the local authority to assert, protect and keep open and free from obstruction or encroachment any route, waterway or other means by which access rights may reasonably be exercised.

    Section 19 -
    The local authority may do anything which they consider appropriate for the purposes of—
    (b)keeping a core path free from obstruction or encroachment;

    Posted 2 years ago #

  9. Arellcat
    Moderator

    On a related note, this FOI response from Midlothian Council is quite interesting. Since MLC's disclosure log omits the original questions that I asked, I have re-inserted them.

    The gist of it is basically MLC saying they won't do anything. This means that disabled people (and a lot of able bodied people who are risk averse!) actually cannot get from Roslin to the country park, a distance of 0.5 miles for the scrambling-happy walker, or 0.75 miles for a cyclist. Anyone in a wheelchair who wasn't reasonably capable of using unsurfaced tracks, would be faced with a nearly 6 mile journey.

    Case reference: FOI-610865218
    Date created: 30th May 2024

    Disclosure title: Roslin Glen Road (B7003)

    1) When pedestrian access from Roslin to the car park and associated area of Roslin Glen Country Park (the old carpet factory area) was last discussed in meetings of Midlothian Council, and the action points of that last meeting.

    Neighbourhood Services which includes Roads Services has not discussed this issue and therefore there are no action points from meetings about pedestrian access from Roslin to the car park at Roslin Glen Country Park. There are, however, informal paths leading from Roslin to the B7003 mainly traversing private land. There is no scope to introduce a roadside footway between the junction at the Penicuik Road and the hairpin bend beside the entrance to the Powdermill Glen.

    2) What plans Midlothian Council has currently to improve pedestrian access to the B7003, for the purposes of establishing a continuous and safe walking route between Roslin and Rosewell that does not require navigating muddy, uneven and steep paths and bridges.

    There are no plans at this stage to upgrade pedestrian access on the footway along the B7003 between Roslin and Rosewell but routine maintenance will continue.

    3) What plans Midlothian Council has currently to improve pedestrian safety for access to and from the unclassified Murrayfield Road (at Esk Cottage/Croft Dyke) at its junction with the B7003.

    There are no plans to introduce a footway from Murrayfield Road at Esk Cottage/Croft Dyke to the junction with the B7003.

    Posted 4 months ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin