[Closed] Cars and pedestrians on a shared footpath

I would have thought that is unlawful. Vehicles are obliged to give way to pedestrians and cyclists. After all, what's the alternative, skittles?

Has rule no 1 been broken here?

Yes, it implies "get off my land prole"

Need a lawyer for this really, but IMHO even if some by-law grants a 'right of way' this doesn't mean the driver can just deliberately run someone over with no legal repercussions. It may only influence the level of reasonable care they should take when driving. For example, one drives at 70 mph on a motorway knowing that pedestrians shouldn't be present, but if one could see people on the carriageway one would be duty-bound to drive more carefully and slowly, perhaps even stop.

Rule no.1 violation, and it's an unreasonable one. Not sure about the legality of the trail hierarchy, although running over the proles is not encouraged. But then, litter/dog mess/not making any effort to allow vehicles to pass is dick behaviour too.

We don't know if there have been incidents where people have decided not to move aside to allow vehicles past, or they just would like the opportunity to drive at 50 down it.

The only potential issue is if the sign could be taken as an obstruction of a ROW by implying that no right exists - 'private drive' etc. Obviously if there's lots of other signage which marks it out as a ROW then not.

the use of the path by people out for their ‘daily stroll’ has increased many fold (probably gone from a dozen or so dog-walkers to 300-400 walkers on a nice day...

The people who own/live in the barn conversions etc have seen this increase in use, and the resultant increase in litter, dog mess, trampling etc on ‘their’ lane and have started to get a bit peeved about the whole affair. It is, nonetheless, still a public ROW – although we believe the land that it runs over itself is in their ownership after they bought it from the local estate some years ago.

FFS, they have hundreds of people strolling up and down their drive and they are asking people to let them past. They're not threatening to run people down or to try to close access. I think you are overreacting a bit.

Where I’ve seen similar previously, land owners have begrudgingly accepted the RoW but also gone to great lengths to make it less convenient, often diverting the original route, fencing it in, sending you through bogs and the like. I’d get the council RoW officer informed as a start as could be the beginning of escalating matters.

Extra signage doesn't change the legal status of the footpath at all. The vehicles should give way to the pedestrians, however observation of rule number one really means it shouldn't be an issue.

The landowner is pushing towards violation of rule number one, but maybe they've had dicks swanning down the path letting their dogs run wild shitting everywhere etc.

If I was walking down that lane and saw a car coming I would acknowledge the car and move aside to allow them past if it was safe to do so. If the car was driven aggressively or blaring its horn it might bring 'the other' out in me and I might choose to walk down the middle of the road in front of it. If head-on it would be tempting to walk up the bonnet and over the roof.

There is so much room in situations for people not to be dicks that people who go out of their way to be dicks tend to deserve what they get.

My mother has a lane across the bottom of her garden similar to that, it's shared use for about 2/3rds of its length. There is a small sign at the start which says 'Slow down, cats', to which I always think 'Yeah man, cosmic'

I read that as saying vehicles have ‘right of way’ over other users.

“Please.... give way”

The ‘please’ makes it’s a request. The ‘give’ suggest the ‘right’ of ‘way’ belongs to the person being asked to grant the request

you have a ‘give way’ sign at a t junction but it doesn’t say ‘please’

I with this “ FFS, they have hundreds of people strolling up and down their drive and they are asking people to let them past. They’re not threatening to run people down or to try to close access. I think you are overreacting a bit.”

They’ve probably met too many people taking the giveaway rule very seriously indeed - 20ft wide bridleway, 2 side by side ramblers coming towards me, I slowed down and went to the opposite side, did I have to stop - oh yes, they made sure I did......, and on the official cycle path it’s unleashed dog after unleashed dog, true fact - if you’re doing 2mph, gone to the opposite side and a dog literally throws itself under your wheel it’s the cyclist fault.

I think you're being oversensitive - it reads to me as a polite request for a bit of consideration by someone who's had a few too many intransigent walkers asserting their precedence when the driver's just trying to get to or from their own house.

I can see why they’d be annoyed, especially if people are dropping litter everywhere. The sign seems polite to me.

Big question is the right of way across the full width of the road or down one side, might find if it's a footpath you don't have right of way across the whole road. I'm definitely in the FFS camp, get a grip, it's not exactly razor wire and shotguns is it. If they really are getting that sort of number of people a day through their property I'm not surprised they are peeved and to be honest that rather polite sign is the least they could have done.

We have a similar thing nearby where a golf course was built but the established footpath remained. There are now signs stating quite clearly that walkers have to give priority to golfers "because its a private golf course".

I find this type of arrogance really irritating, and I play golf! A sign saying beware of golfers fair enough.

I'd be tempted to put up my own sign, making it as official looking as possible, saying "Public Right of Way". Nothing more.

In the case of the golf course maybe I'd sneak in and cover the sign with my own saying "Golfers take care, public right of way".

Considerably easier for a pedestrian to move to the side than for a car to jump in a bush.

Common sense really to me it reads like too many people have failed to apply rule 1 and need reminded.

Slight digression but 'unappointed countryside ranger' near to me (aka 'stickman') has a real boner for blocking off (or attempting to) one stretch of woodland path with logs. These logs are all hop-able.

It's not even a particularly great track for riding down, but I make a special point of riding that way now, just so his/her actions are ending up having the opposite effect from the intended.

When I'm cycling, I give way to walkers. i.e I don't run them over. I'd still expect them to let me past at the first opportunity.

They probably wouldn't mind if you amended the sign to the slightly less inflammatory 'please allow vehicles to pass' 😉

FFS, they have hundreds of people strolling up and down their drive and they are asking people to let them past. They’re not threatening to run people down or to try to close access. I think you are overreacting a bit.

I'm pretty sure the vast majority of people will step aside and give way whenever they see a car approaching. I spend a lot of time riding on shared paths and a lot of people are just completely oblivious to their surroundings, which can be immensely frustrating but they are shared spaces and so you just slow down, give a smile and say Hello. That's courteous. Sometimes I occasionally walk the same routes and it gives you a very different perspective. You don't go putting up signs asking people to give way to you. In fact there are already signs all along the paths I ride asking cyclists to give way to more vulnerable users: horses and cyclists, which is only right really.

But as usual, in the OPs example, the heirachy is completely reversed, car is king and everybody should get out of the way. It sounds like understandable impatience from the land owner, but respect and courtesy is required from all sides and signs like this reinforce a dangerous precedent. Everybody has a right to be there, and everybody will experience the place differently and have their own frustrations.

OK, thanks all - some useful observations there.
Just to come back on a couple of things.
First off, yes, it's been reported through the County Council's web-portal, which will presumably route a message through to the ROW team when they're back in work tomorrow (Monday).
Secondly, we've also dropped a note to the local Town Councilor so that he's aware of it as a local issue. And the local Facebook group has been 'alerted' which as you can imagine, will probably have fired up a few people; I keep well out of all that.
The ROW is reasonably well signed; there was a 6' finger post at the end of the lane a couple of years ago, but it rotted at the base and broke off, and the remaining part of the post was then re-erected so it's now about 4' high. But there's another full-height fingerpost a bit further on, and footpath roundels on stiles and so on further still where the path goes from the metalled/shared lane into the fields. There doesn't seem to be any intent in all this to try and close the path in any formal manner, or indeed to make it harder to use. Arguably there's a view to discourage its use by the appearance of the new signage, but that's implicit rather than explicit.

I know they're aggrieved at the increased litter etc, indeed a couple of the residents were recently on a litter-tidying exercise all along the lane, and collected at least three binbags of tat. So I can understand that side of things. I was brought up to 'leave no trace', and it pisses me off too.
All that said, one or two of the residents drive at considerably more than their own, self-signed, 5-10mph. At least one of them has an electric Jag, which makes little sound other than tyre noise, and as @butcher says, an awful lot of people are oblivious to their surroundings.

Modifications of some sort to the sign that I photographed, or the mysterious overnight appearance of an alternative one, are still distinct possibilities. I don't want to be in a position to be accused of damaging the ones that have been erected, so it's most likely to be an extra sign, possibly taped on top of that one.

I'm definitely trying not to over-react... and was only looking for useful opinion and so on by posting earlier today. But I do know that there's a fair amount of local indignance, especially from the regular and long-term users of the route who have been getting a bit hot under the collar since yesterday. We'll see what transpires in the next week or two.

The shared use (but not a right of way for 1/2 of its length) path, local to us was gated off & painted with ant vandal paint after the owners suffered abuse during lockdown #1, that was the best traffic free route to the west of Aylesbury lost because of the actions of some ****s ☹️ its not always the landowners at fault. Right of way still accessible but is not all paved so the roadies have to go elsewhere.

It's a polite sign asking people to give a little.

I could imagine, like the couple we met today on a shared use path, that many won't get out the way even with patience, a nice bell and cheery hello.

like this? local FB page in meltdown

I'm genuinely seeing nothing wrong with that at all.

Over reacting to it probably won't help matters.

<cringe for uttering rule 1 nonsense>
Rule 1 has been broken, but not by who you think 😉
</end cringe>

It says private drive, its not its a footpath, it says please be respectful, OK, it says give way to, don't have to but will if they are being driven respectively.

I could imagine, like the couple we met today on a shared use path, that many won’t get out the way even with patience, a nice bell and cheery hello.

I don’t see an issue with the sign, I do have issues with people like the above, because I’ve come across far too many of them.

There doesn’t seem to be any intent in all this to try and close the path in any formal manner, or indeed to make it harder to use.

I know they’re aggrieved at the increased litter etc, indeed a couple of the residents were recently on a litter-tidying exercise all along the lane, and collected at least three binbags of tat. So I can understand that side of things. I was brought up to ‘leave no trace’, and it pisses me off too.

Maybe you should go and talk to them and see what it is that they want. If all they are asking is that people walking up their drive have the courtesy to move over and let them past, is that really depriving anyone of their access rights? The idea that, "I'm going to be a pain in the arse just to show that I have the legal right to be a pain in the arse" is not a very constructive way to deal with sharing things. On the scale of shit that's wrong in the world, that sign doesn't really even register.

Not hugely offensive sign - it depends on how they behave. If there's an expectation that they can drive a 30mph down the lane while walkers and kids throw themselves in hedges then not cool. If it's borne of exasperation and a wish to be able to leave their homes then seems OK.

I’m pretty sure the vast majority of people will step aside and give way whenever they see a car approaching.

The vast majority might but it only takes a few idiots that don't to leave an impression of the land owner being regularly impeded whilst trying to drive to and from their property. I highly doubt that sign has been put there 'just in case' people keep preventing vehicles moving down the lane, whether it was one incident or fifty though we'll never know so it's hard to judge the landowner's tolerance levels...

if you’re doing 2mph, gone to the opposite side and a dog literally throws itself under your wheel it’s the cyclist fault.

I thought the dog owner was liable for any damage or injury for not keeping their animal under control - not that I’d wish any harm to the dog even though I’m not keen on them. Any lawyers know?