CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Resources

Cycling on the Pavement

(28 posts)

  1. Robbie
    Member

    Some very interesting recent advice from the Scottish Parliament Information Centre on Pavement cycling.

    This confirms what was previously suspected to be true, in that a fine can't be given for riding responsibility on the pavement when a route is a core path (which many in the city centre are). Obviously you shouldn't do it everywhere, but it clears up whether cycling in permitted on Rose Street, for example.

    https://spice-spotlight.scot/2024/07/15/hey-you-cant-cycle-thereexcept-when-you-can-which-probably-isnt-obvious/

    Similar advice on legal status of e-bikes.
    https://spice-spotlight.scot/2024/07/15/ev-rider/

    Posted 1 month ago #

  2. neddie
    Member

    To avoid the huge danger created by drivers, particularly when I'm with my children, I will cycle responsibly on the footway, when required to navigate a junction where no safe cycling facilities have been provided.

    I make no apology for this. I'm sick of waiting for this city to create an equitable transport system.

    Haymarket (Dalry colonies / Morrison-cut-thru to CCWEL) is good example of where footway cycling is required, as the junction is a total mess as far as bikes are concerned - they haven't even enabled the light-controlled crossing to allow bikes to access the the city's strategic east to west link... ffs

    Posted 1 month ago #

  3. Dave
    Member

    I'm confused by "Footpath: A way, which is not associated with a carriageway, where right of passage is limited to foot."

    Because I've always had in mind the highway act 1835 which restricts riding on "any footpath or causeway by the side of any road made or set apart for the use or accommodation of foot passengers”

    Maybe there's some Scots law here

    Posted 1 month ago #

  4. Morningsider
    Member

    @Dave - definition of a footpath in Scotland is set out in Section 151(2) of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984. 'aint no highways in Scotland.

    Posted 1 month ago #

  5. acsimpson
    Member

    One question I have that the spice bridging doesn't clear up is how epacs interact with the land reform act. Ie are epacs still considered bikes under the act or are they motor vehicles?

    Posted 1 month ago #

  6. Morningsider
    Member

    @acsimpson - Section 140(c) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 "Certain vehicles not be treated as motor vehicles" states:

    c) an electrically assisted pedal cycle of such class as may be prescribed by regulations so made, shall be treated as not being a motor vehicle.
    The 'regulations' are the Electrically Assisted Pedal Cycle Regulations 1983 - as amended by the Electrically Assisted Pedal Cycles (Amendment) Regulations 2015.

    Which is a long way of saying that EAPCs are not considered to be motor vehicles and should benefit from land reform act assess rights.

    Posted 1 month ago #

  7. Robbie
    Member

    @Morningsider This was covered in a seminar I went to by Sepherd and Wedderburn

    Can't find a recording but their article here gives the gist of it https://shepwedd.com/knowledge/resolving-rural-disputes-webinar-access-rights-and-e-bikes

    Posted 1 month ago #

  8. Dave
    Member

    I don't know how this escaped me for the last few decades but I strongly suspect that we routinely use "footpaths" (illegally) under the misapprehension that the LRA applied. This is especially the case around our accessing the kids' former nursery and schools. Urgh.

    The right of way thing is also vexed, so if a right of way arose other than by 'customary use by bike' it would exclude us from using it (unless, unclear, the LRA can broaden the access provided by RoW status

    Posted 1 month ago #

  9. Robbie
    Member

    Reid's Close is an example of a footpath where cycling isn't technically allowed, despite being very wide. However Sibbald Walk isn't adopted and so responsible cyclng is allowed.

    These adopted "public realm" spaces would be commonly used for urban cycling abroad, but are governed the same as pavement in Scotland. I doubt this gets routinely considered during adoption.

    Posted 1 month ago #

  10. neddie
    Member

    I strongly suspect that we routinely use "footpaths"

    @Dave, Are you sure these have been designated as "footpaths, ... where right of passage is limited to foot" ?

    Because the implication in the SPICe article is that most paths are not designated this way, but are actually just "paths, ... where access is generally restricted to foot or bike"

    In any case, it seems Open Street Maps is inconsistent on the matter of path naming, for example Boys Brigade Walk is designated as "footway" even though it is clearly not adjacent to any carriageway

    https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/52913438/history/13

    Also, I'm not sure that "rights of way" is even a thing in Scotland, this is an English system, used to protect footpaths and bridleways. In Scotland, there is no trespass law, so in theory no need for any "rights of way", as you can technically go anywhere as long as you're non-motorised and not in someone's garden.

    PS. I'm not an expert, so happy to stand corrected on any of the above

    Posted 1 month ago #

  11. neddie
    Member

    In OSM, Donkey Lane is called a "footpath" when querying the features ("nearby features"), then a "footway" under the "highway" tag, with the "bicycle" tag set to "yes" (so presumably bikes allowed)

    Jeez, what a mess. If OSM can't get the nomenclature right, what hope is there of ever knowing if cycling is legal or not...?

    https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/4526829/

    Posted 1 month ago #

  12. Frenchy
    Member

    OSM has to be consistent internationally; designing it around the vagaries of Scots law would not be sensible.

    Posted 1 month ago #

  13. neddie
    Member

    many routes referred to as ‘footpaths’ are not formally designated as such, meaning they are technically paths. To establish whether a particular route is a footpath, it is worth checking the relevant local authority’s list of public roads. This should be available on the local authority’s website and describe whether the use of a particular path has been restricted to pedestrians only. If a route is not listed then it is likely to be a path, rather than a footpath

    Posted 1 month ago #

  14. Robbie
    Member

    This is the current map of adopted roads and footpaths

    https://data.edinburghcouncilmaps.info/datasets/cityofedinburgh::adopted-roads-1/explore

    It states Roadway or Footway for each area, but doesn't differentiate between footway and footpath.

    Rights of way do exist in Scotland https://scotways.com/ken-category/rights-of-way/
    Scotways states:

    If the right of way is either a core path or crosses land where access rights are in operation then you can cycle on it as long as you do so responsibly.

    If the right of way is not a core path or does not pass through land where access rights apply then you can only cycle along it if it’s a right of way for horses, often called a bridleway or bridle path, or if there are rights for vehicles, or there are rights for cycling either because of historic use or because it has been designated as a cycle track.

    Posted 1 month ago #

  15. chrisfl
    Member

    OSM has to be consistent internationally; designing it around the vagaries of Scots law would not be sensible.

    Indeed, OSM tagging isn Global, that way routers and amppers don't need to understand the meaning of tagging in specific places.

    One of the best descriptions I've heard is that OSM tagging is based on German Interpretation of British English.

    Posted 1 month ago #

  16. Baldcyclist
    Member

    Cubs two weeks ago was cycle night, cycling down the pavement tot he Links with my son (I was a bit behind), and an older woman started shouting at my son telling him bikes wearen't allowed on the pavement.

    He stopped, looked a bit terrified, and so I intervened.

    He's a child, it's not illegal, I don't allow him to cycle on the road.

    Your not a child.

    I can't instruct him from the road, when there are parked cars between us.

    Went on for a bit with her saying all you had to do was apologise, to which I replied there was no need for me to apologise.

    The boy rightly pointed out to me a wee bit further down that she was a 'Karen'.

    We continued on our way on the pavement.

    Regards OSM, no-one actually uses that for anything do they?

    Posted 1 month ago #

  17. Dave
    Member

    I strongly suspect that we routinely use "footpaths"
    @Dave, Are you sure these have been designated as "footpaths, ... where right of passage is limited to foot" ?

    Because the implication in the SPICe article is that most paths are not designated this way, but are actually just "paths, ... where access is generally restricted to foot or bike"

    For example, on the council's map of adopted roads you can see both paths between Juniper Green and Baberton are "footways", which I now understand means that kids have to use the A70, dual carriageway down to the huge roundabout at the bypass slips for Baberton junction then into Baberton that way.

    (I would never let them do this, but it's annoying that it's not LRA)

    Posted 1 month ago #

  18. Dave
    Member

    That's doubly annoying actually. It means that when the path across the field between Juniper Green and Currie is delivered, it won't actually provide a surfaced and lit route to the canal or our allotments as they are technically severed by the long "footway" sections

    Posted 1 month ago #

  19. Robbie
    Member

    @Dave the east one must be designated for cycling as it appears on the councils cycle map
    https://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/downloads/file/26044/south-west-gorgie-the-gyle-sighthill-saughton-slateford-wester-hailes-colinton-and-balerno

    Posted 1 month ago #

  20. Dave
    Member

    Okay, that's something! It's so inconsistent, I notice on the council map that there's a "shortcut for cyclists" coming east off Curriehill Station Rd (which I do use, good that seems legit) but it doesn't show the car-free exit to the east of Currie High despite their being a specific symbol for "shortcut with steps". I wonder how much of this is actually designated correctly as opposed to being a random project of someone at the council without being connected to any legal statuses.

    Posted 1 month ago #

  21. Robbie
    Member

    The engineering firm I work at is doing the new Currie High. The exit to the east is being extended to run through the campus to Currievale Park Grove

    A strong east-west cycle route will be maintained across the site running along the northern boundary of the main school building and to the south of the sports pitches. This cycle route will be 5m wide running through the majority of the site before reducing down to 3m at the western end of the site to tie in with existing infrastructure.

    The existing cycling facilities in the vicinity of the development are of a limited nature, with most cycling in Currie expected to take place on-street. However, with 20mph speed limits and traffic calming in place the local road network should be considered conducive to cycling. In addition NCR 75 is available to use 400m to the south of the site as an ‘off road’ cycle provision for more strategic trips.

    Posted 1 month ago #

  22. neddie
    Member

    In addition NCR 75 is available to use 400m to the south of the site as an ‘off road’ cycle provision for more strategic trips

    Sending school girls down to the unlit, secluded Water of Leith path? - What could go wrong?

    Posted 1 month ago #

  23. Frenchy
    Member

    That council map of adopted roads and paths just lumps all cycleways and footways into the "footway" category. Middle Meadow Walk is included, and is definitely designated as a cycleway in reality.

    Posted 1 month ago #

  24. Dave
    Member

    The engineering firm I work at is doing the new Currie High. The exit to the east is being extended to run through the campus to Currievale Park Grove

    Nobody will be happier than I, but when I looked into this before the planning application site boundary does not go as far as Forth View Crescent so it wasn't obvious how this cycle route would actually connect to the east. Did I miss a separate application maybe?

    Posted 1 month ago #

  25. neddie
    Member

    The council map isn't up to date either, as it doesn't include CCWEL along West Coates, for example

    Posted 1 month ago #

  26. Morningsider
    Member

    The map is a neat feature, but you really need to consult the actual list for full details:

    https://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/downloads/download/13183/public-roads-in-edinburgh

    Posted 1 month ago #

  27. Robbie
    Member

    @Dave This isn't a part of the cycle path in the school project, which will terminate just before the footbridge between numbers 50 and 52.

    I understand CEC Active Travel are doing the offsite works, one of the recommendations of which was a "wheeling ramp adjacent to the steps on path from the school to Forthview Crescent".

    This was a while ago, and they might know more.

    Posted 1 month ago #

  28. Dave
    Member

    Oh, that's disappointing (although maybe an improvement for less confident riders) as at the moment you can get up the earthen bank next to the steps by charging at it, we wouldn't be able to use a wheel ramp and push up the steps with eg an Urban Arrow.

    You would hope that a 5m wide cycle path across the site of a massive investment in a passivhaus school would include level access on all four sides, frankly, but... "This is Edinburgh"

    Posted 1 month ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin