'Lost' cycle ways

[mjr]

The Keynsham Bypass near me is on the map. Good Lord! - no room for cycling at all!. I wouldn't cycle on this if you paid me - horrible fast stretch of dual carriageway that many motorists use for attempts on the world land speed record. Funny, don't recall seeing any cycle lanes near it. Nearest one is the old faithful Bristol Railway Path.

There aren't now but I used to go to meetings at the co-op there (what's now Waitrose) and wondered in the past whether the wide-but-overgrown footway along the northern side at the Waitrose end used to be continuous instead of terminating in steps down to an underpass. The walls are set back, the footway over the bridges is wide with a kerb type that there's no reason to use otherwise and there's a stub at the east end used for police vehicles.

Access from Keynsham to/from the BBRP is pretty poor, involving either unprotected A roads or a detour through Saltford.

Many of these "lost" cycleways will have been obliterated by the later works of the cycling-neglectful Highways Agency and where they do still exist, there may well be no formal record of a right to cycle on them because I think the current rights of way registration system started in the late 1940s.

 

[KnackeredBike]

Many of these "lost" cycleways will have been obliterated by the later works of the cycling-neglectful Highways Agency and where they do still exist, there may well be no formal record of a right to cycle on them because I think the current rights of way registration system started in the late 1940s.

Is there a separate system for recording cycle paths alongside roads? My impression was that everyone has the right to pass and repass along highways unless they have restrictions (plenty around here are no cycling) or are Special Roads. But there is nothing to stop a highways authority ripping up a cycle lane and expanding a road, although convention is that alternative cycle provision would be made.

 

[Pale Rider]

Here's a pic of one of the paths in Sunderland which are marked on the map.

There's one on the other side of the road as well.

 

[byegad]

There's a perfectly good cycle path which starts just outside our house and it allows me to cycle anywhere in the country except for Motorways. The locals call it a road!

 

[mjr]

Is there a separate system for recording cycle paths alongside roads?

It's not separate but my understanding is that the decision of the highway authority to create a cycle track alongside a road should result in a change to the "definitive map" (as should a Cycle Track Order to create one between two roads). There are at least two small problems with that system: the definitive map is a fairly modern creation and some pre-WW2 decisions aren't reflected on them (which is what Carlton Reid is trying to remedy AFAICT); and sometimes the map isn't updated, or is updated despite planned changes not actually being built (multimodal project budget being diverted to motoring is what I've seen happen).

But there is nothing to stop a highways authority ripping up a cycle lane and expanding a road, although convention is that alternative cycle provision would be made.

Not merely convention: there's policy and shoot about it - even some law - but there's almost no scrutiny (highways changes don't normally go through planning committees, for example) and there's been naff-all enforcement from Whitehall for decades. I'm full of admiration for the cycle campaign groups that spend staggering amounts of effort discovering what's going on and applying pressure to stop some of the most outrageous plots of highways authorities.

 

[mjr]

There's a perfectly good cycle path which starts just outside our house and it allows me to cycle anywhere in the country except for Motorways. The locals call it a road!

Cool story, bro'.

 

[KnackeredBike]

There's a perfectly good cycle path which starts just outside our house and it allows me to cycle anywhere in the country except for Motorways. The locals call it a road!

Probably won't make you popular on pedestrianised roads.

 

[byegad]

Probably won't make you popular on pedestrianised roads.

Then it's no longer a road it's a pedestrian area.

 

[Drago]

Its an absolutely fascinating insight

 

[mjr]

Then it's no longer a road it's a pedestrian area.

What a strange claim! So before motor traffic and bicycles, were there no roads?

 

[byegad]

 

[Deleted member 23692]

It's not separate but my understanding is that the decision of the highway authority to create a cycle track alongside a road should result in a change to the "definitive map" (as should a Cycle Track Order to create one between two roads). There are at least two small problems with that system: the definitive map is a fairly modern creation and some pre-WW2 decisions aren't reflected on them (which is what Carlton Reid is trying to remedy AFAICT); and sometimes the map isn't updated, or is updated despite planned changes not actually being built (multimodal project budget being diverted to motoring is what I've seen happen)

The definitive map only covers public rights of way and does not include anything 'cycle track'. In fact if a PRoW is 'upgraded' under a cycle track order (Cycle Tracks Act 1984) then it is removed from the definitive map. If a cycle track is created on a new route by legal order (CT Act '84) it cannot be added to the DefMap.

A cycle track creation is effectively an extinguishment of a PRoW and the defmap should be updated accordingly to reflect the change.

Cycle ways alongside highways (ie on the footway) are a different beast altogether. Also different are permissive agreements to allow cycling along a public footpath - these will be between the landowner and whoever, and may not necessarily include the Highway Authority. If this is the case then it's most probably not maintainable at public expense to a standard suitable for cycling, only to its legal status as footpath

 

[mjr]

The definitive map only covers public rights of way and does not include anything 'cycle track'. In fact if a PRoW is 'upgraded' under a cycle track order (Cycle Tracks Act 1984) then it is removed from the definitive map. If a cycle track is created on a new route by legal order (CT Act '84) it cannot be added to the DefMap.

You're quite correct. I meant the List of Streets, which usually cites highways or points from the Definitive Map. Apologies.

If this is the case then it's most probably not maintainable at public expense to a standard suitable for cycling, only to its legal status as footpath

Footpaths aren't normally maintained at public expense and I'm pretty sure of that because a landowner was trying to get the councils to maintain it when I was a councillor - we successfully refuted that, although I think we did give a grant towards replacing instead of repairing a bridge that was useless to the landowner but we wanted improved.

 

[KnackeredBike]

Footpaths aren't normally maintained at public expense and I'm pretty sure of that because a landowner was trying to get the councils to maintain it when I was a councillor - we successfully refuted that, although I think we did give a grant towards replacing instead of repairing a bridge that was useless to the landowner but we wanted improved.

It is a criminal offence to obstruct a footpath but EU subsidies require landowners to maintain rights of way. So as a council you would have both a carrot and a stick to use.

 

[Deleted member 23692]

You're quite correct. I meant the List of Streets, which usually cites highways or points from the Definitive Map. Apologies

Ah the list of streets. Possibly the disappointing thing you will ever see. It's simply a list....of streets . However HA's will have a map showing the extent of their responsibility, but it's not legally 'definitive' along the lines of the PROW map and statement. Again it won't show everything that's rideable as cycle routes installed and owned by district councils and Sustrans etc won't appear unless they've been adopted, which isn't always the case

Footpaths aren't normally maintained at public expense and I'm pretty sure of that because a landowner was trying to get the councils to maintain it when I was a councillor - we successfully refuted that, although I think we did give a grant towards replacing instead of repairing a bridge that was useless to the landowner but we wanted improved.

Footpaths (and other PRoWS) are highways maintained at public expense and HA's have a duty to assert and protect the publics right on them. There are budget to do so... but not always the time and resources.

In short the HA isresponsible for the maintenance of the surface and landowner is responsible for the maintenance of any structure across it (gates, styles etc) but can ask for a 25% contribution from the HA to do so. That is a very broad rule of thumb and there will be countless exceptions, and the definition of maintenance is quite important.

However if (for example) a footpath is trashed via the trafficking of farm/construction machinery, then the party responsible for the damage is responsible for its restoration. This is enforceable but proving who did the damage is extremely difficult to do, except where arable fields are concerned, but that's for another day

Bridges are a whole different kettle of fish, and would take a couple of pages to give a rule of thumb for!

At a guess from the above example.... The landowner was wanting the potholed surface of a private track (also a FP) improved so they could get their vehicle up and down it? In that case its not the HA's responsibility unless the surface was that bad it was affecting use on foot (ie it's legal status), AND even then the responsibility stops at foot usage. Simply put, potholes can be walked around.

As for the bridge...if it's a private structure the HA can, at their discretion, offer a financial contribution towards it's maintenance. Simple put, it's easier to get an existing private vehicle bridge repaired than install a HA owned (foot/bridle) bridge should the original one become unusable.

The PRoW legislation is old and outdated and often trumped/conflicted by other Acts of Parliament, but at least there is legal protection and good documented case law, unlike cycle tracks/routes/way/whatever which is at best is a hotchpotch.

Right of to work, and put the above into practice...................