Comments on: No Bridge Over Troublesome Water

By: psling

psling — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 09:07:59 +0000

[i]“maybe I’m being thick but what does the judgement mean and how does it benefit bikers?”[/i]

It means that the council have a duty to replace the missing bridge thus restoring a public right of way to its original usable state. Whilst this particular instance may be on a Footpath, its relevance to cyclists is that a precedent has been made which could be applied to other Rights of Ways, eg. Bridleways and Byways, in other similar cases.

By: ir_bandito

ir_bandito — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 20:09:28 +0000

Doh! this bridge

By: ir_bandito

ir_bandito — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 20:08:30 +0000

mlke – all developments are good, and assuming its [url=http://www.streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?x=406460&y=617665&z=120&sv=406460,617665&st=4&ar=y&mapp=map.srf&searchp=ids.srf&dn=850&ax=406460&ay=617665&lm=0]this bridge[/url], its right next to a bridleway, so opens up good route possibilities.

By: mlke

mlke — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 18:12:55 +0000

maybe I’m being thick but what does the judgement mean and how does it benefit bikers?

By: poppa

poppa — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 12:10:10 +0000

A bike isn’t an accessory to walking.

You have to tie one end of a piece of rope to a rock, and then tie the other end to your bike. Then you throw the rock over the river, walk over the bridge then pull your bike across the river.

Otherwise you will go to hell.

By: Colin-T

Colin-T — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 11:58:47 +0000

So, a new bridge on a footpath. Is this an invitation to cheekyness?