New Clause D (Hansard, 24 June 1968)

§ Mr. Skeffington
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The House will recall the various attempts to bring some relief to that very hard-pressed section of users of the highway, pedal cyclists. I shall not go through all the attempts we have made to achieve this very desirable objective, but I hope that the House will agree that as a result 181 of consultations and further thought this new Clause would give a considerable measure of relief in that it would permit in suitable circumstances cyclists to ride on footpaths and bridleways. There are various savings in the subsections. Subsection (1) gives the public a right to ride a bicycle on any bridleway and protects the prior rights of walkers and horse riders by requiring the cyclists to give way to pedestrians and persons on horseback ". It also excludes "motor vehicles". We ought to provide some relief to cyclists while at the same time ensuring that the prior users for whom the powers were originally provided should have their rights maintained.
Subsection (2) preserves the effect of any traffic orders or byelaws made by local authorities or others restricting the use of bridleways. Subsection (3) pre-vents increased standards of maintenance being required because of use by cyclists. Subsection (4) maintains the present definition of "bridleway" which is in the Highways Act. Subsection (5) applies the meaning of "motor vehicle" in the Road Traffic Act 1960. Subsection (6) deals with unreasonable behaviour and is taken from the well stated and exercised law in the Road Traffic Act, Sections 9, 10, 11 and 13.
The previous draft Clauses giving cyclists the right to ride on footpaths were considered to be too onerous on the landowner, to give rise to a possible danger to other users, and, when a requirement was included requiring the Cyclist to dismount when passing other users, to be impracticable.

§ Mr. Channon
I think the Parliamentary Secretary is wise not to go through the details of projects which have been discussed on this matter, because some of them are the most ludicrous I have 182 heard since I have been in this House. On the whole, this is a satisfactory compromise which has been arrived at, although it could cause considerable inconvenience to some farmers. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has received a letter from one, who says: In my own case, which is by no means exceptional, it will mean that flocks of 50 (or more) cyclists will be entitled to ride through the collecting area of a newly built yard and parlour, and more than 1½ miles of bridleway traversing the permanent pastures which form the grazing grounds for over 100 cows. Only another farmer could tell you what the result of this invasion is likely to have on the herd, the herdsman and all those in any way concerned for the well-being of the farming industry. This provision could cause considerable difficulty to farmers were it not for the fact that subsection (2) empowers local authorities to make appeals. I hope the Government will consider it advisable for powers to be given to local authorities to make appeals in order that people like the farmer whose letter I have quoted, who has a very genuine case, will not be put to inconvenience by the passing of the new Clause.
Although I am not completely happy about this matter, I accept that it is the best that can be achieved at this moment. I advise my hon. Friends to accept the compromise Clause.

§ Dame Joan Vickers
Will perambulators come under the byelaws? There is no mention of them. What preference will a perambulator have over a horse or a bicycle? This is important, because many people push prams.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. We should have to have another Amendment to deal with perambulators.