Hi uni people, It has been brought to my attention, through Polaris, that
Roger Davies (Roger.Davies@octacon.co.uk) wrote:
: I have discussed this with Duncan Castiling and believe that this is because
: of the wording in the act of Parliment that allows bicycles to use bridleways.
: We believe that it specifies that only Horses, Bicycles and pedestrians are
: allowed to use bridleways - and that all other vehecles are not allowed to use
: them… Can any one confirm or denie this; this is bad news for British
: Mountain Unicyclists if it is true.
I would be very surprised if this is true and would be applied:
I doubt the definition of bridleway use specifies bicycles exclusively. Most,
and I believed all the traffic laws refer to ‘cycles’, which include
tricycles, quadracycles (?) etc. The laws explicitly specify that a cycle is a
device featuring ‘two or more wheels’. Admittedly, on this reading, a unicycle
is not a cycle, and thus would not be permitted, but it is a simple matter
to argue that a unicycle is not a vehicle- it is certainly not horse-drawn (they
get their own regulations) nor is it motor-driven (who also have regulations).
If it is not a vehicle, then the rider of a unicycle is a pedestrian (in the
same way that a bloke pushing a wheelbarrow or a pram is still a pedestrian,
despite the presence of a load-carrying vehicular device). This is how you get
to ride your unicycle on the pavement if you want.
Furthermore, laws are usually (but I don’t know the details in this case)
phrased in terms of what you cannot do. That is, it will say motorised
vehicles must not use bridleways, rather than saying that only x, y and z
may use bridleways. Specifying who can do something is normally too
tricky. For example, your list of who can use bridleways excludes anyone
driving a flock of sheep.
Besides which, can you really see anyone prosecuting a unicyclist for riding on
a bridleway? In the absence of a well-formed legal opinion, and the lack of
precedent, it would have to go to the House of Lords. Not terribly likely, I
think, musch more likely that someone would say ‘clearly, the spirit of the
law is that unicycles would be allowed, if only the people who wrote the law had
thought that anyone would be mad enough to want to ride one of the things on a
regards, Ian Smith
> include tricycles, quadracycles (?) etc. The laws explicitly specify that a
> cycle is a device featuring ‘two or more wheels’.
So you could use a three-wheeled giraffe, presumably!
Personally, I’ve always found the British police very easy-going with members of
the public (no doubt many Druids would disagree). Only last week the burglar
alarm went off at a local factory where I was unicycling under the motion
detectors in the carpark at night to take advantage of the security floodlights.
I was the only person around, but the policewoman who questioned me just said
she’d find out how the alarm worked and let me know!
If you really feel the need to be completely within the law, why not attach a
small wheel under the seat or somewhere, thus making it into a ‘device featuring
two or more wheels’? But personally, I think this would draw attention to
illegality of what you’re doing. It’s a clever idea, and probably stupid, too.