Footbridge at Musselburgh - "cyclists dismount" signs

[alcole]

After last year's email exchange, has anyone uncovered whether the signs on the footbridge over the Esk are in fact correct? (i.e. has the council the power to force cyclists to dismount and if so has it taken the appropriate steps to do so in law?).

IIRC Dominic Hines was vociferous in his position that the signs were not lawful.

Any further info?

[Andrew]

The same sign has been put up at the junction of the Mound and Princes St - "Cyclists Dismount" - presumably to protect ourselves from crossing the tram tracks.  I can't believe that this is mandatory, surely only advisory?

I ignored it.

[GeoAngus]

Done a quick search and it appears to be legal to cycle on the pavement in Scotland:
http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/boris-johnson-hits-out-at-rogue-cyclists-23968
But is a bridge classified as a pavement? Is the cooncil worried about the elderly matrons of Musselburry having to throw themselves off out from the speeding path of semi-legal cyclists tearing across the bridge en-mass?

[lcdabdoujaparov]

Maybe we should dismount. It'd only take 30 seconds to cross it walking and keep us in people's good books. And if I were a pedestrian coming the other way whilst 20 cyclists were coming towards me It'd freak me out.

[Garry]

It is NOT a mandatory sign, it is only advisory.  You are not legally obliged to dismount.  It's there mainly for the cyclist's benefit.  (You may not have much recourse for legal action if you were involved in an accident that was not caused by your own doing, if you did not follow the advice).

[GerryC]

Or read this...

http://www.bikeforall.net/content/cycling_and_the_law.php

[Garry]

Or read this...

http://www.bikeforall.net/content/cycling_and_the_law.php

Clear as mud.

Found this interesting from the above article:

"According to this advice issued by the Department of Transport, cyclists likely to be riding 18mph or faster should use roads not cycle-paths. "

[alcole]

That site appears to be English. Scots law is likely different.

"According to this advice issued by the Department of Transport, cyclists likely to be riding 18mph or faster should use roads not cycle-paths. "

Sounds sensible to me, sharing a path with peds at those speeds is no fun at all. 

What is your authority for the sign being advisory?

[GerryC]

I'm certain only children aged eight or under are allowed to cycle on pavements/walkways.  Bridleways usually count as roads.

The following may help: http://www.cyclingscotland.org/herald-commonsreporttomakecyclingsafer.aspx . So it would seem CyclingScotland consider cycling on pavements illegal.  Since the bridge at Musselburgh is a footbridge then it makes sense that cyclists should dismount.  The arrangement of the barriers at the east side of the bridge is surely to make certain that cyclists dismount and not simply to permit ERC members to show their superior bike handling skills.

[Garry]

The arrangement of the barriers at the east side of the bridge is surely to make certain that cyclists dismount and not simply to permit ERC members to show their superior bike handling skills.

Or to stop children running onto the road...

Surely if cycling was not permitted on the bridge, it would have a mandatory order sign, not an advisory one??Also, aren't the roads leading to and from the bridge part of some kind of cycle network?

[doug67]

OK, time to try and put this to bed - I've contacted a colleague who's the Cycling Officer for CEC to try and find out - the answer thus far is "it depends on whether the footbridge is adopted by East Lothian Council or not".  The implication is that if it isn't adopted by the Council then the signs can be mandatory.

However, I'll get in touch with East Lothian to get the final word.  Until then...stay calm and refrain from contacting the Daily Mail or Radio 2.

[cliff]

It all depends on whether the bridge is classed as a Footpath or a Footway - they're treated differently in Scots law. A Footway adjoins a road (we call it a pavement), is covered by the Highways Act, and it's illegal to cycle on it. A Footpath is not alongside a road and is covered by the Land Reform Act. Under the Land Reform Act a cyclist is on the same legal footing as a pedestrian ie has access nearly everywhere as long as s/he ACTS RESPONSIBLY. I contacted the East Lothian Access Officer (who has the power to remove legal access) when the signs first appeared and at that time the right to cycle over the bridge had not been removed ie the signs are advisory. Got that?

[Garry]

On a similar note, according to the CTC moves are afoot to try and arrange cyclist access to the bridge next to the "foot"bridge.  Apparently it's called the "electric" bridge, or something.

[Dom Hines]

All very interesting, but rather academic. Alexander the Great didn't muck
about with the Gordian Knot. I have heard, can't remember where, that someone
is heading to the bridge, very soon, with a big toolbox, and will be removing the
signs so that dog users can't spend their Saturday mornings lambusting
cyclists crossing the Esk.

[GeoAngus]

Dom has raised a good point, I think in any questionable situation in cycling it is often useful to asks oneself "What would Alexander the Great do?". Clearly invading central Asia is not a practical option when faced with a slow puncture, but an aggressive, innovative approach is often the best way forward. In the case of the footbridge I would suggest Alexander would have built a pontoon adjacent to the bridge to apply a two pronged pincer tactic in the face of any belligerent pedestrian advance.